Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

PRESERVED MANUFACTURED MILK.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider bringing preserved manufactured milk, which is being imported, within the scope of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): Preserved manufactured milk is not covered by any of
the headings of the Schedule to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and is consequently dutiable only in so far as it contains added constituents which are themselves dutiable. Articles of food and drink are expressly excluded from the operation of Part II of the Act.

PART II.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which deals with the collapsed exchanges and dumping, has yet been brought into operation; if not, will he state the reason for the delay; and is he aware that the complaints which have been made as to the administration of the Act are mainly by persons who are engaged in importing German goods and who by reason of the Act are deprived of some portion of their profit?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but no Orders have yet been made. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on this subject on the 13th February. As regards the last part of the question, which presumably relates to Part I of the Act, the great majority of complaints under Section 1 (5) have come from associations of traders, and complaints as to the general administration of the Act have also come mainly from persons engaged in the import trade.

Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state the reason for the delay, or whether he intends to make any Orders under Part II?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think there is any undue delay. The making of an Order requires a great deal of careful consideration.

Mr. TERRELL: Is not the consideration given on the Committee stage of the application?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is not so.

CREAM OF TARTAR.

Mr. KILEY: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate cost of the proceedings of the hearing of the complaint that cream of tartar has been wrongly included in the Board of Trade list of articles chargeable with duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which has now occupied seven sittings; if he is aware that Mr. Percy Ashley, accompanied by a number of the Board of Trade officials, Government and other expert chemists, and counsel are present at these proceedings; what arrangements are made for carrying on the normal work of his Department during the absence of these officials; can he state the total number of counsel and chemists present at these hearings; and has he any idea of the total cost involved in the holding of this inquiry?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not in a position to give the estimate asked for by the hon. Member, as I have no information as to the costs incurred by the complainants or by the companies allowed by the Referee to appear in opposition to the complaint. But, so far as the Board of Trade are concerned, the only costs incurred (apart from the the fees of the Referee) are the fees of one junior counsel representing the Board and the cost of the shorthand notes. No officers of other Departments have been present, and as regards the attendance of officers of the Board at the hearings, which have hitherto been either on Saturdays or on other days from 4 to 6 p.m., as a general rule only one officer is present for any length of time, and I am satisfied that the normal work of the Department is not being impeded, since, as is usual in times of pressure, the staff is working overtime, for which extra remuneration is not entailed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this bundle I hold in my hand are the shorthand notes of the parties concerned in only one of these cases, and that they cost over £500 to take? How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the statement that only one official in his spare time is doing the work from the Government point of view?

CARBIDE OF CALCIUM.

Mr. KILEY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the British Cellulose Company, Limited, made an application for an Order to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent, on imported carbide of calcium, at the same time requesting that their name might not be disclosed; whether he has acceded to this request for secrecy and, if so, on what grounds; whether he is aware that this company, the Board of Trade, and various firms interested in carbide of calcium each briefed leading and junior counsel to represent them at the hearing; can he state the period of time occupied in dealing with this case and the number of sittings held by the Referee; and can he give any idea of the total cost of this inquiry, including Referee's fees, solicitor's charges, shorthand notes, fees for chemistry experts, etc.?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Board of Trade were not requested to withhold the name of the applicants in the case to which the hon. Member refers, and in fact the name was published in an official notice issued to the Press on the 9th November and appearing in the "Board of Trade Journal" of the 10th November. The Board of Trade briefed only one junior counsel, though complainants and others interested briefed leading and junior counsel; no solicitor's charges were incurred by the Board of Trade, and no expert witnesses were called or paid by them. There were 10 sittings of the Referee in all. I am unable to state the total cost of the inquiry, as I have no information as to the expenses incurred by the complainants or the other interested parties who appeared by permission of the Referee.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any complaints have been received under Part II of the Safe-
guarding of Industries Act in respect of agricultural machinery, implements, or fertilisers; and if, in the event of such complaints being investigated by a Committee appointed under the Act, such Committee will be required to take into consideration the fact that foodstuffs produced in this country are not safeguarded by the Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think there are objections to publishing information regarding the nature and scope of any particular complaint prior to the decision whether to refer it to a Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Board of Trade take into consideration the great depression in the agricultural industry at the present time and see that they are not further hampered by this Measure being put into force against them?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

FABRIC GLOVES, GOLD LEAF AND GLASS-WARE.

Dr. MURRAY: 59
asked the President of the. Board of Trade (1) whether ho is aware that among the witnesses appearing in opposition to the application of the British fabric glove manufacturers for a protective duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, were representatives of the Bolton spinners, employing upwards of 3,000,000 spindles in the manufacture of yarns for export to Germany for the manufacture of Saxony fabric gloves; and whether he will give due weight to this opposition in considering any recommendation which the committee of inquiry may have made;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings recently conducted under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, in respect of an application for a duty to be imposed upon gold leaf imported from Germany, and especially as to the extent to which the particular type of gold leaf purchased from abroad is a primal necessity for decorative purposes in such important British industries as printing, bookbinding, etc.; and whether he can assure the House that due consideration will be given to the evidence of these very important home industries;
(3) whether he is aware that in connection with the glass-ware inquiry recently conducted at the instigation of his Department under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, the British manufacturers' application for a duty was strongly opposed in the mounting glassware section by silversmith and electroplating manufacturing interests in Sheffield, London, and Birmingham, in whose industries the imported glass-ware constitutes a very important raw material; and whether he is taking steps to satisfy himself that these important British manufacturing interests will be adequately safeguarded in any action which he may decide to take as a result of the inquiry?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the representations made to the Committees with regard to the matters referred to, and the hon. Member may rest assured that full weight will be given to all relevant considerations in deciding what action, if any, should be taken by the Board of Trade. I do not understand what the hon. Member means by saying that the glassware inquiry was conducted "at the instigation" of my Department.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the recent declaration by the Lord Privy Seal on this matter, these inquiries will not be held up and the duties will not be put on until the Government has decided what its policy is?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will study that declaration, which I have not yet seen.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons are now employed in connection with the Registration of Business Names Act; whether this Department is now being run at a loss; if so, of how much annually; and whether, should there be a loss, he will consider the possibility of either discontinuing the Department or increasing the fees to make it self-supporting?

Mr. BALDWIN: The number of persons, including messengers, employed in the Registry of Business Names is 43. The deficit for the calendar year 1921, ex-
clusive of rent, rates, stationery and postage, amounted to £2,305 7s. 2d. The fees were increased as from the 1st July, 1921, to the maximum authorised by the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916; and the estimated deficiency for the year 1922 is £1,500. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative, but the adoption of either course will require legislation.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is it considered still necessary to continue the registration of business names? Is it worth while?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is probably the reason why the whole matter is now being considered.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 100.
asked the Financial Secretary to the. Treasury whether the present daily hours of employment in Government offices for the clerical grades are from ten to five; and, if this is so, whether he will, with the object of economising in the number of employés, and consequently in expenditure, consider the desirability of establishing an eight-hour day in these offices?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The normal hours of attendance for the general clerical classes employed in London headquarter offices are seven a day, but as I have stated in reply to previous questions these hours are frequently exceeded without extra payment. In provincial offices generally, where a large proportion of the clerical staff is employed, the normal hours of attendance are eight a day. As regards the second part of the question, decision must await action on the recommendation made on page 157 of the Third Report of the Committee on National Expenditure.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman making full inquiry into the whole matter to see if it is not possible to arrange that the large number of officials of the lower grades do perform eight hours work per day?

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Why not the higher grades too!

Mr. YOUNG: I think I replied to that question in the latter part of my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOBACCO PRICES.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry as to whether the high retail prices of tobacco and the large profits earned by the combine which dominates the tobacco trade have been maintained by means which operate in restraint of trade?

Mr. BALDWIN: A Sub-committee was appointed by the Standing Committee on Trusts under the Profiteering Acts to inquire into the existence of a trade combination in the tobacco industry, and into the effect which its operations has on prices and on the trade generally. The Sub-committee reported on 13th December, 1919, and the Report was published as Cmd. 558 (1920). In these circumstances, I do not think that a new inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. SCOTT: Has the Tight hon. Gentleman observed that while costs have gone down prices have gone up since that date?

Mr. BALDWIN: No, I have not.

IMPORTS.

Mr. DOYLE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the imports from Japan into India and China during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, of cotton goods, general textiles, general manufactures, cutlery, toys and fancy goods, and of semi-manufactured articles, respectively?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reply to this question involves a statistical statement which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

Complete information under all the heads mentioned in the question is not available, the classifications shown in the official statistics of the trade of British India and of China, respectively, not including groups of "manufactured articles," of "semi - manufactured articles" or of "fancy goods" imported.

Imports into British India consigned from Japan during the years ended 31st
March, 1920, and 31st March, 1921, respectively.

Consigned from Japan.
Year ended 31st March, 1920.
Year ended 31st March, 1921.*



£
£


Total Imports
19,153,000
26,430,000


Cotton manufactures
5,288,000
10,028,000


Textile manufactures other than of cotton.
3,494,000
2,808,000


Cutlery
88,000
47,000


Toys
240,000
167,000


* Subject to correction on publication of the Annual Statement of the Trade of British India.

Imports into China from Japan during the year 1919 and 1920.

Imported from Japan.
1919.
1920.



£
£


Total imports
78,198,000
77,811,000


Cotton manufactures
27,600,000
26,405,000


Textile manufactures other than of cotton*.
2,122,000
1,498,000


Cutlery and electroplated ware.
51,000
45,000


Toys and games
85,000
82,000


* The figures are inclusive of cotton hosiery, which is not separately distinguished in the official returns.

The published figures for the first 10 months of the year show that aggregate exports from Japan to China were less in value in those months of 1921 than in the corresponding period of 1920 by about 35 per cent., and the value of exports to British India fell off by about 59 per cent. Later figures are not to hand.

Mr. DOYLE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the imports into this country and France from Germany of coal; raw material generally; cottons and other textile fabrics; manufactured articles and semi-manufactured articles; foodstuffs of various descriptions; toys; and crockery and fancy articles?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer involves u statistical statement which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:

The available returns do not enable a statement to be made of the imports of
each of the classes of goods mentioned in the question. The following table contains such of the desired particulars as can be shown:

Imports into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, registered during the year 1921:



£


Coal
39,000


Raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured (except coal)
1,100,000


Cotton yarns and manufactures
439,000


Yarns and manufactures of other textiles materials
1,090,000


Food and drink
645,000


Toys and games 
1,375,000


Porcelain, chinaware and parian, and general earthenware semi-porcelain and majolica
314,000


Fancy goods 
292,000


Total of articles wholly or mainly manufactured
18,482,000

Imports into France from Germany during the year 1921:



1,000 Francs.


Total imports 
2,476,446


Coal, coke, and manufactured fuel 
1,344,231*


Cotton yarns and fabrics
13,149


Yarns and fabrics of other textile materials (except silk)
3,698


Grain, flour and malt
10,888


Animals for food 
3,722


* Coal from the Saar Coalfield is not included.

Mr. HASLAM: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imports into the United Kingdom from Holland, Denmark, and Germany, re spectively, during the years 1913, 1920, and 1921, respectively; and the value of manufactured and partly manufactured articles, respectively, included in the values referred to in this question?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer involves a statistical Table which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am unable to show separately the value of manufactured and semi-manufactured articles, but the Table gives particulars for 1913 and 1920 of the classes of goods described
in the Returns as "raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured" and

Imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Holland, Denmark and Germany, registered during each of the years 1913, 1920, and 1921, distinguishing imports of "Raw Materials and Articles Mainly Unmanufactured" and imports of "Articles Wholly and Mainly Manufactured," so far as the particulars are available.


—
—
From Holland.
Prom Denmark.
From Germany.*




£
£
£


Total Imports
1913
23,578,000
23,831,000
80,411,000


1920
39,254,000
31,166,000
30,252,000


1921
38,858,000
41,367,000
20,550,000


Raw Materials and Articles mainly unmanufactured
1913
1,929,000
298,000
6,524,000


1920
5,539,000
1,334,000
2,566,000


1921
†
†
1,100,000


Articles wholly or mainly manufactured.
1913
4,227,000
241,000
56,257,000


1920
14,478,000
1,367,000
25,617,000


1921
†
†
18,482,000


* The figures for 1913 relate to pre-war Germany; those for 1920 to Germany exclusive of Alsace-Lorraine; and those for 1921 to Germany exclusive of Alsace-Lorraine, Memel, Dantzig, the part of Poland formerly German, part of Slesvig (now Danish) and Luxemburg.


† Particulars not yet available.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.

Mr. GILBERT: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any British ships traded with Russia during the year 1921; and, if so, can he give the number of ships and their tonnage entering Russian ports and the number of ships and their tonnage entering British ports from Russia during last year, also the total value of British exports to Russia and the imports from Russia to Great Britain during last year?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer can be given most conveniently in a statistical table which, with the permission of the House, I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the table:

1. Movement of shipping between the United Kingdom and Russia in 1921:

(a) Vessels cleared from United Kingdom ports for Russia:




No.
With cargoes. Net tonnage.


British vessels 
…
44
69,491


Foreign vessels
…
95
86,256


Total
…
139
155,747

No.
In ballast. Net tonnage.


British vessels
…
12
12,751


Foreign vessels 
…
39
40,584


Total
…
51
53,335

"articles wholly or mainly manufactured" respectively.

The following is the Table:

(b)Vessels entered at United Kingdom ports from Russia:




No.
With cargoes. Net tonnage.


British vessels
…
29
41,145


Foreign vessels
…
171
145,167


Total
…
200
186,312

No.
In ballast. Net tonnage.


British vessels
…
14
20,918


Foreign vessels
…
7
13,492


Total
…
21
34,410

2. United Kingdom trade with Russia, registered during the year 1921:



£


Value of imports consigned from Russia
2,701,000


Value of exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures consigned to Russia
2,173,000


Value of exports of foreign and colonial merchandise consigned to Russia
1,210,000

NOTE.—These figures relate to Russia exclusive of Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the part of Poland formerly Russian territory.

FISH IMPORT DUTIES (FRANCE).

Major ENTWISTLE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the import duties on British fish entering France have been
or are about to be considerably raised and that this will cause the French market to be closed to the British fishing industry, with consequent unemployment in the latter industry; and what steps the Government proposes to take to secure the interests of our fishing industry in this matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have been asked to reply. Import duties on British fish entering France have not been increased, but the French Government is being strongly pressed by the trawler owners to increase them. The fish merchants in France are strongly opposed to any increase. The matter is one which rests with the French Government who are well aware of the views of British fishing interests.

Major ENTWISTLE: Are we to understand there is no proposal to increase this? The trade has been informed that it is going to be increased by 55 francs per 100 kilos?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said the French Government are being pressed by the French trawler owners to increase the duty, but the matter has not yet been Settled.

Major ENTWISTLE: If this proposal is made, will the British Government make strong representations to the French Government that it should not be carried out?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly. I think representations have been made.

Dr. MURRAY: How can the Government do so when this is merely a reprisal for the not very bright example set by Coalition legislation? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Safeguarding of Industries Act!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER PRICES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet had an opportunity of investigating the; prices now being charged for beer to the public; and whether thin Board of Trade has any proposal for protecting the public if the charges of profiteering against the brewers are substantiated?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am causing inquiries to be made, but I cannot anticipate
speedy results in view of the pressure on my staff. I do not think that a renewal of official control is desirable.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the use of holding an inquiry if the Board of Trade propose to do nothing in the case?

Mr. BALDWIN: We cannot decide whether to do anything or nothing until we have made the inquiry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Board of Trade intend to take any action if the charges mentioned in the question are substantiated?

Mr. BALDWIN: It depends entirely upon the result of the inquiry.

Major KELLEY: I sincerely hope the Government will make inquiries, and if they find the brewers are profiteering they will prosecute them—and I am a brewer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CAB AND MOTOR FINANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. MILLS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as a result of the liquidation of the Taxi-cab and Motor Finance Company, Ltd., over 600 depositors, the majority of whom are ex-service men, have lost their deposits, amounting to upwards of £23,000; that at a meeting of the creditors, held on the 28th October last, the Official Receiver promised to make a full investigation of the affairs of the company; whether such investigation has yet been made; if so, with what result; and whether the Board of Trade will cause a full inquiry to be made into the affairs of the company, with a view of ascertaining the causes of the liquidation and if there is a case for the prosecution of the promoters of the company and others responsible?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. A report has been received from the Official Receiver that he has made a full investigation, the result of which will be embodied in his observations to be issued to the depositors in the course of about a week. It does not appear that any of the deposits received have been misapplied, and on the facts at present before the Official Receiver there
are no grounds which would justify an allegation of fraud against the promoters or officials of the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY STORES.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much of the stores and property under the charge of the Disposal Board in Ireland has been looted or lost in the last six months; what is the value of that which is left; under whose care is it; and what steps are being taken to protect it for the British taxpayer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): With the exception of two vacant aerodromes and a small quantity of unserviceable stores, the Disposal Board had no property in Ireland under its charge until 17th January last, when the evacuation of the Army began; since that date a certain amount of looting has taken place, but the value of the stores so lost has been very small. It is not possible to state at present what is the total value of the property which will become surplus to requirements on the completion of evacuation. In reply to the last part of the question all property not remaining in the custody of the Army or the Police is handed over as evacuation proceeds for safe custody to the Provisional Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is not the Irish Republican Army under the sole control of Southern Ireland, and what safe custody is the right hon. Gentleman going to secure for the property?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is handing over stores for safe custody to the Irish Provisional Government and the Irish Republican Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Handing over stores, but not munitions of war— stores and Government property as the troops have withdrawn from the country —to the Irish Provisional Government. I do not know what other course the hon. and gallant Gentleman would suggest.

Sir W. DAVISON: What means have the Provisional Government for protecting these stores?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The so-called Irish Republican Army is under the orders of the Provisional Government and is obeying the orders of that Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Some of them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In almost every county in Ireland they are strictly obeying the orders of that Government. The Minister of Defence of Dail Eireann is also the Minister of Defence of the Provisional Government, and it is through him that authority is exercised upon this Army.

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial Government propose to take steps to protect the interests of such of His Majesty's civil servants who may be absorbed in the service of the Irish Government, and will guarantee the pensions payable to existing civil servants in the event of such pensions not being forthcoming from Irish sources?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer this hypothetical question further than by referring to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury on the 15th instant.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Service Committee under Section 56 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, has been set up; if so, whether they have laid down Regulations for the statutory conditions of retirement of civil servants under the Eighth Schedule of that Act; and whether the Imperial Government will take steps to amplify Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921, relating to civil servants who are discharged by the Free State Government or who retire in consequence of the change of Government by the re-enactment of all the sections and schedules of the Act of 1920 relating to the Civil Service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury on the 16th instant. In view of the explicit terms of Article 10 of the Treaty, which are embodied in the Bill at present before the House, it does not appear that any advantage would
arise from the adoption of the suggestion contained in the third part of the hon. Member's question.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Treaty, is there any guarantee under the Treaty to be compared with the guarantee which the civil servants possessed under the Act of 1920, which gave them not only the resources of the Joint Exchequer Board but the security of the residuary share of the joint taxes, which ensured the payment of their just claims and pensions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All these matters will have to be subject to discussion and negotiation during the next few months. In the meantime there is no advantage in my going beyond the statement I have made.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether under Article 10 of the Agreement for a Treaty the judges, officials, and other public servants will, on the passing of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill, have the option of retiring on a pension, and within what period must that option be exercised; whether the Irish Free State Government or the Provisional Government will be entitled on the passing of that Bill, or at any time thereafter, to discharge all such persons without cause assigned; and whether the pensions of the persons so retiring or discharged will be guaranteed by the British Government, both in the case where their salaries and pensions are charged on the Consolidated Fund and in the case where these salaries are not so charged?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matters referred to in the first two parts of the question are at present under discussion between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the Provisional Government, and I can say nothing further than that Article 10 of the Treaty entitles the persons concerned to treatment not less favourable than that laid down in the relevant provisions of the Act of 1920. In reply to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that when this matter is
discussed the option for retirement in two years, which was given by the Act of 1920, will be conferred upon these people on terms at least as favourable as those in that Act?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Was not the option of retirement only in those cases where civil servants were offered the occupation of a lower grade than before, and is it not necessary, under present conditions, to give them a wider option?

PEERS.

Major KELLEY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the roll of Irish peers is to be closed when the Treaty with Ireland comes into force, or whether the Crown will thereafter be able to create Irish peers; and whether, pending the reform of the Second Chamber, any alteration will be made in the status of Irish peers in the Imperial Parliament?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The position of the Irish peerage can only be altered by legislation. Legislative sanction will be sought in due course to deal with this matter in the light of the changes that will follow the final establishment of the Irish Free State. It is not, however, possible at this stage to indicate the nature of the changes which will be necessary.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the payment of old age pensions in Southern Ireland will cease to be a charge upon the British Exchequer after the conclusion of the arrangements bringing the Irish Free State into existence?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer is in the affirmative. The Provisional Government have undertaken to make the payments.

MILITARY STORES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that orders have been issued by the competent authority of the Irish Republican Army that under pain of severe punishment the auction or sale of military hutments, equipment, stores, or buildings is not to be undertaken by those who generally undertake such sales; and whether, in
consequence, such military material has had to be handed over to the Irish Republican Army or their friends on nominal terms or by way of free gift?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that a notice was recently issued by a person styling himself a brigade commandant of the Irish Republican Army prohibiting the purchase by members of the public of certain army hutments and stores that were being offered for sale. This person was not acting under the authority of the Provisional Government. The stores and hutments in question were subsequently handed over by the Army authorities, acting as agents of the Disposals Board, to a representative of the Provisional Government, subject to a valuation and to their being taken into account in the ultimate financial settlement between His Majesty s Government and the Government of the Irish Free State.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numbers of people like myself, who have had houses burnt, want to get these huts to live in, and is he aware that we take the risk of being shot?

Sir W. DAVISON: Have any steps been taken to punish this officer of the Irish Republican Army who wrongfully issued this order? That is what we want to know.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that question.

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister why the material and stores of the military camps at Kilworth and Moorpark, in County Cork, were not put up to auction, but handed over to the Irish Republican Army; and what. has been done with the large extent of land which was bought not so many years ago for the purposes of forming an important training area for the South Irish military district?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The military authorities in Ireland, acting as agents of the Disposals Board, have handed over the material and stores in the military camps at Kilworth and Moorpark to representatives of the Provisional Government, subject to a valuation, which will be taken into account in the final financial settlement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the
Irish Free State. As regards the land, the Provisional Government have undertaken to hold it subject to whatever agreement may be arrived at between the two Governments as to its future ownership, or as to the terms of its acquisition in the event of the ownership passing finally to the Government of the Irish Free State.

Viscount CURZON: Have these stores and so on been handed over to the Irish Republican Army, and, if so, to which branch of the Irish Republican Army—de Valera's or Collins'?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I never used the words "Irish Republican Army." I said "representatives of the Provisional Government."

Colonel NEWMAN: Are not those who have possession of these stores and so on entitled to sell them at a fair price?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, certainly. We have all the proprietary rights of private property.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Does it not come to this, that valuable property belonging to the British taxpayer is being handed over on no better security than the credit of the Irish Provisional Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is undoubtedly true that large quantities of property which cannot otherwise be safeguarded, now that our troops are leaving the country, are being handed over to the Provisional Government, end the credit of the Provisional Government is responsible for the proper adjustment of the accounts.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure he is not handing over these valuable stores for the benefit of a Republican Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Mr. R. McNEILL: You will never see a sixpence for them.

PRESENT POSITION.

Sir D. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement in regard to the position in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it may be convenient to make a full statement in
regard to the position in Ireland. Last week it was very difficult to tell from the reports which appeared in the newspapers and from those which we had received what had actually happened at the meeting of the Sinn Fein party in Dublin on Wednesday last. We therefore thought it better to invite the Irish signatories to the Treaty and Irish Ministers to come over here and discuss the position with us, and, in the meanwhile, to defer any statement. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Duggan and the legal adviser of the Irish Provisional Government, Mr. Kennedy, accordingly came here on Friday night, and a series of conferences has taken place.
The result of these conferences has been both satisfactory and reassuring.

Sir F. BANBURY: To whom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Irish Ministers have in no respect receded from the Treaty or weakened in their determination to carry it through in its integrity. Their opposition to the Republican party continues unabated. At the meeting of the Sinn Fein representatives, however, a very strong demand was put forward that the Irish people should have the Constitution before them as well as the Treaty when they are called upon to give their votes at the election. To this demand the Irish Provisional Government has deferred.
Their opponents have, I understand, promised that, in these circumstances, the election shall be facilitated and that the Provisional Government shall not be hampered either by the Dail or by the supporters of Mr. de Valera in the interval.
The result of this agreement will be to delay the election for six or seven weeks, and it is now expected to take place in the early part of June instead of in April. There is nothing in this change which affects the position of the British Government or which touches the Treaty in any way. All that is needed is a simple Amendment in the Bill before the House providing that instead of the election taking place as soon as may be, it shall take place within four months. In the meantime a technical committee appointed by the Provisional Government is understood to be at work in Ireland upon the Constitution. The Constitution will be framed in Ireland. The Constitution will
be submitted to the Irish people by and with the authority of the Provisional Government, and not by and with the authority of the Dail Eireann. The Provisional Government recognise that they will have to take steps to satisfy themselves that the Constitution so framed is of a character that the British Government can accept as fulfilling the Treaty.
Both sides are now engaged in preparing their electoral and party machinery for any appeal to the Irish electorate. It is believed that the method which has now been adopted will enable that appeal to be conducted by constitutional methods, and will reduce intimidation to a minimum.
In these circumstances there is clearly no reason whatever for any change in the policy we are pursuing here. The evacuation of the British troops will continue stage by stage, and the Debate on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill will be resumed at the earliest convenient moment. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is prepared to assign Thursday and Friday to these discussions.

Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that the Government have abandoned the position that the Treaty cannot be altered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; there will be no question of any alteration of the provisions of the Treaty except by agreement on both sides.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the House to understand that the Irish Constitution is to be drafted by Dail Eireann, which is a Republican assembly?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as it is possible to use the English language as a vehicle for thought, I have endeavoured to assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case.

Lieut-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will an opportunity be given to the House of discussing the newly drafted Constitution before the Government gives its assent to it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. The Constitution will come before the House, as was explained by my right hon. Friend, when the final
Bill dealing with these matters is introduced into this House. That will be the time for it to be discussed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it will be possible for this House to express its opinion on the Constitution drafted by the Irish Government before the Irish elections are held?

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand the Dail Eireann is not to meet during the next six or eight weeks, as has been confidentially stated by statements in the Press?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know anything about that.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of what occurred in the Ard Fheis on the 22nd instant in Dublin, and the grave position which has thereby arisen, will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the withdrawal of troops from Southern Ireland and the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have dealt with that in the general statement which I have made to the House.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (PAYMENTS).

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state by what methods he proposes to secure the authority of Parliament for the payment of the contribution in respect of criminal injuries in north-east Ulster which it is proposed to make to the Northern Parliament, and when he proposes to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The necessary provision will be made in the Estimates for 1922–23 and 1923–24, and can be discussed in the ordinary course.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION).

Mr. KILEY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has approved of the action of the Dyestuff Advisory Licensing Committee in demanding from applicants for licences to import dyes highly confidential business information, such as the name of the foreign manufacturer, the purpose for
which the dyes are required, and the name and address of the applicant's customer in this country; and whether the rules for the administration of the Dye-stuffs (Import Regulation) Act can be revised so as not to compel applicants to disclose confidential information to business rivals who are members of the Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee have thought it advisable, for the efficient discharge of their duties, to ask for information of the kind indicated from applicants for licences. I see no reason for interfering with the exercise of their discretion in this matter, which, so far as I am aware, has not been a cause of complaint by users. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 2, Sub-section (5), of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act.

Mr. KILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any satisfactory reasons why one firm should be compelled to disclose the names of their customers to their competitors?

Mr. BALDWIN: No complaints have reached me on the subject yet.

Mr. HOGGE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that it is the practice of the Dyestuffs Committee, when an application is made for permission to import certain German dyes not made in this country, to advise the applicant to apply to Swiss agents for the same; and can he give any reason for such proceedings?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that in accordance with the strong wish of the dye-users generally, in consequence of the assistance rendered by the Swiss dye-makers to the textile industries during the War, such advice has been given.

Mr. KILEY: Does that mean that if the applicant does not want to go to Switzerland he would not be allowed to import the dye at all?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not say that that follows.

Mr. RAFFAN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to immediately institute an inquiry on the working of the Dyestuff Advisory
Licensing Committee and to hear evidence of specific cases of injury to industries consuming dyes caused by the continual refusal of the Licensing Committee to grant licences for specific dyes not obtainable from home sources of supply?

Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that there is any serious dissatisfaction among dye-users generally with the operations of the Committee, on which the users are strongly represented and which is discharging a very difficult task with great care and ability.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain branches of industry in Scotland are seriously hampered by the dye-stuffs policy of the Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: If so, representations can be made before, the Committee.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most important firms in England are also similarly hampered?

Mr. RAFFAN: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to set up a committee himself, will he make inquiries into this matter with a view to ascertaining the facts?

Mr. KILEY: Is there any appeal whatever from this Committee in case of necessity?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should want notice of that question. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan), I am in touch with this Committee, and I see them whenever they desire to see me on any matters affecting their work.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications received by the Dyestuffs Committee for permission to import special dyes from Germany for the reason that such dyes are not procurable in England; and the number which have been granted and the number of similar applications to import dyes from Switzerland?

Mr. S. BALDWIN: The numbers of licence applications granted and refused could not be given without going through the files, as no record as to numbers is
kept, and they would not, I think, be of any appreciable significance; but as regards quantities during the year ended the 31st December last, applications to import 671,032 lbs. from Germany were granted, and applications to import 771,109 lbs. were "refused. During the same period applications to import from Switzerland were allowed in respect of 1,796,754 lbs., and refused in respect of 502,579 lbs.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERAL ROYALTIES (DURHAM).

Mr. SWAN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the royalty rent per ton of coal and minerals and wayleaves in the county of Durham by the various royalty owners for the years 1913 and up to the present, including the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Dean and Chapter and the Commissioners for Woods and Forests, stating the amount received each year; and what portion, if any, went to the local rates?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The average amount paid for rent, royalties, and wayleaves per ton of coal raised in the county of Durham from 'the latter half of 1917 (the earliest period for which information is available) was as follows:

1917, July to December
…
6¼d.


1918, January to December
…
6¾d.


1919, do.
…
7d.


1920, do.
…
7¾d.


1921, January to March
…
7¾d.

Particulars for the second and third quarters of the year 1921 are not yet available. I regret that the remainder of the information asked for is not in the possession of my Department, but it would appear from the Reports of the Inland Revenue Commissioners that the variation between 1913 and 1917 in the United Kingdom as a whole was small. It is understood that none of the royalty rent for the county of Durham was paid to local rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAIDS (GRANTS).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims the Grants Commissioners (Air Raids) have examined and how many remain to be examined; and whether any awards have yet been paid
to those unfortunate victims who have had their homes destroyed or damaged some six years ago?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made on this subject on the 23rd instant in connection with the Supplementary Estimate for Grants for Compensation for Damage by Enemy Action. The Royal Commission on Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action have not yet made recommendations to the Treasury as regards any of the cases submitted to them, but, as explained in the statement referred to, they expect to present an Interim Report dealing with specially necessitous cases very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

PARIS CONFERENCE, 1919 (MEMORANDUM).

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table the Memorandum which he circulated at the Paris Conference, dated 25th March, 1919, in view of the fact that part of that Memorandum has never been published by Signor Nitti?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated on Wednesday last, the Government are considering the desirability of issuing a Blue Book containing Memoranda circulated during the Peace Conference. I am not in a position to give a more definite reply at present.

Mr. HOGGE: I postponed this question, which was addressed to the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, in order to get a decision to-day. When may I put down a question so as to get an answer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Since the hon. Gentleman put down his question we have been considering the matter, and in reply to some other" questions asked last week I said we have been considering the question of publication. In that case this memorandum will of course form part of the publication, but I am afraid that I cannot indicate when the hon. Gentleman may put down a question.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will that publication contain a complete record of all that went on at the Versailles Conference?

EXPATRIATED GERMANS (PROPERTY).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to exercise the discretionary power conferred under Article 297B of the German Peace Treaty to charge the movable property in this country of expatriated citizens of German birth not habitually resident in Germany, and over whom the German Government neither exercises nor claims to exercise authority or control; and whether His Majesty's Government will give directions that the right of expatriation conceded by the Government of the United States of America in favour of citizens who had withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the country of their birth prior to the War, with the settled purpose of throwing in their lot with their adopted country, should be conceded in this country to citizens domiciled in neutral countries claiming not to be continuing German subjects?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. The property of persons who had lost their German nationality through absence from Germany is being released to them.

TAXATION, BELLIGERENT COUNTRIES.

Mr. DOYLE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister to give the figures of the taxation per head of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and the United States; and whether any representation has been made to Germany to increase her taxes in order to provide funds towards reparations?

Mr. YOUNG: With the hon. Member's, permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the information asked for in the first part of the question. In reply to the second part of the question, partly as the outcome of representations made by the Reparation Commission, the German Government has submitted to the Reparation Commission a full statement on the subject of taxation in Germany and on the comparative burden of taxation in Germany, England and France in relation to taxable capacity. I understand that this statement is being carefully examined by the Reparation Commission.

Mr. DOYLE: What is the relative taxation per head in Germany and in this country?

TAXATION REVENUE (ESTIMATED).


—
Year
Amount.
Per Head.


United Kingdom
…
…
…
…
1921–22
…
£964,000,000
£20 8s. 10d.


Germany
…
…
…
…
1921–22
…
Marks 61,991,000,000
Marks 1033.2







1922–23
…
Marks 96,627,000,000
Marks 1610.5


France
…
…
…
…
1922
…
Francs 22,421,000,000
Francs 571.8


Italy
…
…
…
…
1921–22
…
Lire 10,320,000,000
Lire 270.7


United States
…
…
…
…
1921–22
…
$3,489,500,000
$ 32.1







1922–23
…
$2,941,000,000
$ 27.1


Russia—Tax Revenue for the nine months January to September, 1922 (the normal budget year dates from 1st October), is estimated at 290,000,000 gold roubles (2.22 gold roubles per head).

GERMAN WOOD.

Sir W. DAVISON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the German Empire is afforested; what proportion of the population of Germany is employed directly or indirectly in connection with the German forests; what is the total value of the unmanufactured wood and timber annually imported into this country; and what arrangements have been made for securing the supply of a substantial part of such wood and timber imports from Germany in discharge of her liabilities to Great Britain under the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have only just seen this question, but the answer, I take it, refers to Germany as constituted before the War. Of the territory in Europe which belonged to the German Empire, about a quarter was covered by woods and forests. The number of persons employed in connection with forestry and hunting in Germany was, in 1907, about 126,000 or rather less than one-half of one per cent, of the persons occupied in industry in Germany in that year. The total value of unmanufactured wood and timber imported into the United Kingdom from all countries during the year 1921, was £30,000,000. Arrangements for the supply of timber on reparation account are now the subject of discussion between the Allies and the German Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter seriously having regard to the fact that in 1921 we imported nearly £30,000,000 of raw wood?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that the matter is now the subject of discussion

Mr. YOUNG: I am getting that information.

The following is the statement:

between the Allies and the German Government.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Would not the necessary effect of this proposal upon the home timber trade be that a number of people would be thrown out of employment?

MUNITIONS, GERMANY.

Sir W. DAVISON: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what action has been taken by the Allies in connection with the breach of the Peace Treaty on the part of Germany in manufacturing since the Armistice large numbers of howitzers of large calibre and concealing the same, in contravention of the terms of the said Treaty; what is the total number of such howitzers discovered; whether the Inter-Allied Commission have recently discovered full returns of the strength of the German army at the time of the Armistice which were stated to have been lost; whether these returns have since again disappeared; and what action has been taken in this matter, as well as in respect of many other like breaches and evasions of the Peace Treaty on the part of Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Sea] whether the guns discovered at the Rockstroh works at Heidenau, in Saxony, some time after the issue by the War Office in September, 1921, of a statement that only 102 guns were left to be dealt with under the Versailles Treaty, have been destroyed; whether these guns were manufactured after the Armistice and under the supervision of a representative of the German Government; whether invoices were dis-
covered, endorsed with instructions from the German Government, to keep the howitzers at the factory instead of sending them in the usual way to the Spandau arsenal; and if he will state what explanation has been furnished by the German authorities of this serious breach of its Treaty undertakings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATF for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to reply to these questions, and I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett on the 23rd instant. As regards the case at the Rockstroh works, most, if not all, of these howitzers have already been destroyed. Before the ratification of the Peace Treaty Germany was under no legal obligation to cease manufacturing war material, and the representations made to the German Government have been on the subject of the concealment of these howitzers. As the result of these representations the manager and directors of the Rockstroh works are to be prosecuted, but I am not in a position to add anything further to my previous replies regarding this case at present. With regard to the last part of Question No. 31, the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have not discovered full returns of the strength of the German Army at the time of the Armistice. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that very full returns were discovered, that they were put under a guard, and that next morning they had disappeared?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have no information on that subject.

Viscount CURZON: Are the directors and manager concerned under arrest, or can they get out of the country?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that.

Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the persistent and deliberate evasion by Germany of the provisions of the Peace. Treaty as to the destruction of war materials existing at the time of the Armistice and the discontinuance of the manufacture of further supplies, steps will be taken to strengthen the Allied military commission of control
and to increase the powers of inspection and investigation vested in the Commission?

Mr. DOYLE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the deliberate and systematic evasion in Germany of the Treaty obligations in regard to disarmament; and if the attention of the Government will be immediately directed to this grave menace to the peace of the world?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that there has been evasion on the part of individuals, including minor officials, in Germany, but in our opinion it would not be true to say that there is persistent and deliberate evasion on the part of the German Government. Exhaustive reports on the progress of disarmament and cases of evasion are forwarded regularly by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Germany to the Allied Military Committee of Versailles which brings such matters as it considers necessary to the notice of the Ambassadors' Conference, or the Supreme Council, with a view to suitable action being taken. The powers of the Commission are laid down in the Treaty and cannot be altered.

Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think there is nobody in high places who knows that these various guns are still being maintained in secret spots and that they will be concentrated for utilisation against some of us at some future time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that in our opinion it would not be true to say that there has been persistent and deliberate evasion on the part of the German Government, though there has been evasion on the part of individuals, including minor officials.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an enormous number of documents were found—two rooms full of them—that they were supposed to have been placed under guard, and that when we went for them the next day they had all been removed? Was that done by minor officials?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no knowledge of that, but I thought it was denied by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War earlier in the afternoon.

Sir F. HALL: It has not been denied.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 38
asked (1) the Prime Minister whether the committee of lawyers which was appointed by the Supreme Council to report on the trials of German war prisoners at Leipzig has now made its Report; whether that Report finds that certain of those war criminals have been acquitted who ought to have been condemned, and that even in cases where the accused have been found guilty the penalty inflicted has, not been adequate; whether the Report unanimously recommends that, in accordance with the Treaty, Germany should be required to deliver up the accused to the Powers concerned; whether the Report will be forthwith presented to Parliament; and what steps are being taken in pursuance of that Report;
(2) asked the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lieutenant Boldt and Lieutenant Ditmar, who were sentenced in July last by the Leipzig court to four years' imprisonment for their action in connection with the sinking of at least two of the boats containing survivors from the British hospital ship "Llandovery Castle," torpedoed and sunk by the Germans, have escaped from prison; whether the British Government have made any inquiries of the German Government as to the circumstances under which these criminals escaped; and whether they have since been rearrested?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Gordon He- wart): I have been asked to reply. As to question 38, I must refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich on the 20th day of this month. As to question 126, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, the British Government has addressed inquiries and a strong protest to the German Government, who have given assurances that they have taken every possible step to secure the re-arrest of these officers, but up to the present no information has been received that they have been re-arrested.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that I never did put a similar question to Question No. 38, will my right hon. Friend tell me what the answer was?

Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend must not have heard me correctly. I said a similar question was put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). It appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. BANBURY: Does the Government intend to confine their action to protest?

Sir G. HEWART: I am not in a position to answer that question. As the right hon. Baronet is, I think, aware, this matter is in the hands of the Supreme Council to whom a Report has been addressed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Was not the Report to which reference is made in Question No. 38 partially published abroad, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that, representations are made to the Supreme Council to allow this Report to be published fully in this country?

Sir G. HEWART: I understand that in some French newspapers there appeared paragraphs which purported to give the substance of this Report. It is not for mo to say how far, if at all, these paragraphs were accurate. At any rate, I am not at liberty to publish the Report, nor do I think it is any part of my functions to address to the Supreme Council such a request as has been mentioned. No doubt the matter will be considered by those whose duty it is to consider it.

Major M. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Report of these lawyers is inconsistent with the Report made by the Solicitor-General to this House when he came from Leipzig, and can he explain how it comes that the British representatives signed this Report?

Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir, I cannot imagine that the report of a committee of jurists was inconsistent with the advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: What is the motive of the Supreme Council for concealing this Report?

Sir G. HEWART: I must not accept the word "concealment." I do not know what the motive for their conduct is.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet give the House the names of the British delegates to the proposed conference at Genoa; whether there has been any alteration in the date for the proposed Genoa Conference; and, if so, what is the reason for such alteration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Italian Foreign Office have informed the Governments invited to participate in the Conference that, owing to the prolongation of the Ministerial crisis, it is necessary to postpone the Genoa Conference for a short time. Preparations for the Conference are being continued without interruption, and as the result of the agreement arrived at with the French Premier the Italian Government is being asked to call the Conference for 10th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

MINES DEPARTMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel BELL: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recommendations made in the Geddes Report, it is proposed to introduce a Bill at an early date to abolish the Mines Department?

Mr. YOUNG: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make on Wednesday with reference to the intentions of the Government regarding the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure.

EDUCATION.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large public expenditure on education and the various opinions expressed as to the results achieved, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of education, including systems and administration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that Parliament already has sufficient material before it to form a judgment, and that no advantage would be derived from the appointment of a Royal Commission.

MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to reduce the mobilisation stores of the transport section of the Mercantile Marine Department as recommended by the Geddes Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: This is a question of military policy, which is under consideration by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the census of production proposed to be taken next year will be postponed, as recommended by the Geddes Committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir.

DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the extent to which Ministers and heads of Departments are prepared to agree in the reductions recommended by the Geddes Committee will be announced by them to the House?

Mr. YOUNG: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes on Wednesday to make a general statement on the intentions of the Government regarding the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman speak for all these Ministers?

Mr. YOUNG: I cannot anticipate the form of my right hon. Friend's speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

Mr. L. MALONE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether the original group of London financiers who were invited by the Greek Government to negotiate the raising of a loan of £15,000,000, to which His Majesty's Government accorded their consent under the Agreement of 1918, have withdrawn from the business, having referred the proposed loan to the Trade Facilities Act Committee, which refused the loan on 5th January last; and whether, in view of his statement
that the application of the Greek Government is before the Advisory Committee, under the Trade Facilities Act, he will explain whether the Committee are reconsidering their decision, or whether this is a fresh application, or what is the exact position?

Mr. YOUNG: I am informed that the application of the Greek Government to the Advisory Committee, under the Trade Facilities Act, which was referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 20th instant, has now been withdrawn and that no application by the Greek Government is now before the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Sir J. D. REES: 53.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the League of Nations' Court of International Justice will have compulsory jurisdiction where two States at variance agree to accept compulsory arbitration in questions of international law; whether such jurisdiction will exist only in respect of the particular difference in regard to which the intervention of the said Court is invited; and whether it is clear that petty States without navies will not be able to obtain decisions from the Court which might compromise the position of great nations dependent for their existence upon sea power and its undiminished rights, privileges, and opportunities?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part depends entirely on the nature of the agreement by which the two States at variance resort to the arbitration of the Permanent Court.
The answer to the third part of the hon. Member's question is supplied by Article 59 of the Statute for the Permanent Court, which provides that "the decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case."

Sir J. D. REES: Is it quite certain that the lessons of the Declaration of
London will not be forgotten and that no compromising or dangerous decisions will be given under these Articles?

Mr. BALFOUR: I can say nothing about the worth or want of worth of particular decisions, but they are particular decisions, and therefore they cannot have the effect my hon. Friend appears to anticipate; in other words, they cannot have the effect of producing a general law.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider in any scheme for the reform of the House of Lords the desirability of creating the post of Lord Chancellor on an analogous basis to that held by the Speaker of this House, thereby effecting economy in pension charges, owing to the fewer number of holders of the office there are likely to be under such new conditions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be premature to indicate in advance what would be the scheme for the reform of the House of Lords. I may, however, observe that, if such a change as the hon. Member suggests were made, the result would not be economy but a heavier charge, since the ex-Lord Chancellors perform services which are necessary for the administration of justice at a less cost than would be incurred if those functions were performed by salaried Law Lords, and any reduction in the number of ex-Lord Chancellors would entail a corresponding increase in the number of salaried Judges.

Mr. MURRAY: Are all the ex-Lord Chancellors employed in law offices at present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "employed in law offices," but I think they all give their services in the House of Lords or the Privy Council.

Major M. WOOD: Would it not be better that the remuneration which these ex-Lord Chancellors receive should be called salary and not pension, seeing that they actually have work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a matter of opinion, and I am never very much inclined to dispute or waste time over words.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-Lord Chancellors are on pension at present in Ireland and England?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. DEVLIN: There are about a dozen of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that there is very widespread dissatisfaction with the Government's refusal to act upon the findings of the Royal Commission and to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle; and whether he will give the House an early opportunity of debating this question and the Government's attitude towards it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that owing to the pressure on Parliamentary time it is not possible for me to arrange a special day for this discussion. An opportunity will, however, arise if desired, on the Estimates. I must not be taken as accepting my hon. Friend's premises, which are, however, matter for argument rather than question and answer.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Farmers' Union in Scotland is almost unanimously in favour of the removal of the embargo?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that be so in Scotland, the Farmers' Union in this country is almost unanimously in favour of its retention.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MILNER MISSION.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in addition to the terms of reference quoted in the Report of the Milner Mission, any supplementary terms of reference or instructions were given to Lord Milner or to the members of the Mission?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Mr. MILLS: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of members comprising the Egyptian Legislative Assembly, the nature of its present functions, and when it last met; whether a considerable number of those elected have since died or become otherwise ineligible; and whether these members have been replaced?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Egyptian Legislative Assembly consisted of 89 members; it has not met since 17th June, 1914, and the mandate of the present body expired in 1917. I understand that some of the members elected in 1913 have since died, and for the reason given above have not been replaced.

Mr. MILLS: Who is paying the salaries of these gentlemen for not doing their work?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give the answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.

ARRESTS.

Mr. SWAN: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that on the day following the arrest of the eight members of the Egyptian Nationalist delegation, in the third week in January, 1922, the mixed bar in Cairo, composed of Egyptians and Europeans, went on strike as a protest against the repressive measures in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SWAN: Has the hon. Gentleman not had inquiries from all parts protesting against the arrest of the delegation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is an entirely different question. If the hon. Gentleman requires an answer to that, perhaps he will be good enough to put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the
clerical class; how many passed, qualified, or failed; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the investigating board under paragraphs 36 to 39 of the Lytton Committee's third interim Report; and how many were recommended?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is:

Number of ex-service men in the Foreign Office who competed in the examination
41


Number successful
5


Number who qualified
6


Number who failed
30


Number who applied to appear before the investigating board
19


Number recommended
7

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. ROYCE: 90.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government, as a measure of economy, to dispose of land held by it for the purposes of the land settlement scheme for ex-service men; whether he has considered the effect of such a policy on the prospects of ex-service men on the land; and by what method the Government proposes, if disposal is decided upon, to dispose of the land held by it?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. Member's question on this subject last week.

Mr. ROYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me any indication when he will be able to answer the question?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think very shortly.

Mr. ROYCE: If I put it down next week?

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it the fact that no further ex-service men will be settled under the scheme?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is not the case at all. The greater part of the land settlement is done by the county council.

Mr. RAFFAN: So far as the land that is in the possession of the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned, are we to understand that no further action is to be taken?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We do not intend as a Ministry to carry out further settle-
ment, but the greater part is being done by the county councils, acting for the Ministry.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 99.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity competed at the recent examinations for the clerical class; how many passed, qualified, and failed, respectively; what number of those who failed applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's third interim Report; and how many were recommended?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The numbers are as follow:

169
entered for the examination.


17
were declared successful.


12
qualified, and


140
failed.


104
applied to appear before the Investigating Board under paragraphs 36–39 of the Lytton Committee's third Report, and


34
were recommended.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN SHIPS, PORTUGAL.

Mr. GILBERT: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many German ships were interned by the Portuguese Government during the War; whether any or all of these steamers have been sold; if so, how many ships and what is the total tonnage sold; and if any of the same have been parted with to firms with German financial interests dominating the same?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Seventy-five German vessels were detained by the Portuguese Government. Of these, 29 were sunk in the course of the War. I have no information that any of the remaining 46 have been sold.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPPING, PORTUGAL.

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply from the Portuguese Government to the British note sent protesting against the
increased charges imposed on British ships entering Portuguese ports; and, if so, can he state the answer and if the Portuguese Government propose to withdraw or alter their charges?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No reply having been received from the Portuguese Government, the renewed attention of His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has been called to the matter. No doubt the change of Ministries and the unsettled nature of the political situation in Portugal have caused the delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER CONFERENCE.

Major C. LOWTHER: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have been notified of the appointment by the Spanish Government of His Excellency the Spanish Ambassador as delegate to the forthcoming Conference regarding Tangier; whether any appointment has been made by the British Government; and whether the Conference is delayed pending the appointment of a French delegate?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Th3 answer to all three parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Major G. LOWTHER: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any in formation regarding the reported political disturbances in Portugal?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Minister at Lisbon naturally keeps His Majesty's Government informed of the situation, which is now practically normal, as fully reported in the Press.

Mr. MILLS: Will this Government recognise the Government de jure?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Of course, we always recognise it.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Gentleman contrast the speed with which that has been granted with the years in which the Government of Russia has been denied the same?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL ROYALTIES (CUMBERLAND).

Mr. CAPE: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average royalty rent paid per ton of coal raised in the county of Cumberland; what was the total amount of royalty rents paid for October, November, and December, 1921; and how much of the same, if any, is paid to local rates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The average royalty rent paid in the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland during the quarter ended March, 1921, was 11d. per ton of coal raised. The total amount so paid was £19,818, none of which it is understood was paid to local rates. Information with respect to the royalty rent paid for October, November, and December, 1921, is not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON ORE ROYALTIES (CUMBERLAND).

Mr. CAPE: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the amount paid in royalty rents on the iron ore raised in the county of Cumberland for the years 1913 to 1921; and how much of the same, if any, was paid to local rates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that this information is not in the possession of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT, REIGATE.

Brigadier General COCKERILL: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that there has recently been more than one fatal accident due to motor traffic where the London-Brighton roads pass through Redhill and Reigate, and that there is a strong feeling locally that the 10-mile-per-hour motor speed limit areas within the borough of Reigate, which includes Redhill, should be extended; whether he has received an application from the borough council requesting the extension of those areas in the interest of public safety; whether he has declined to sanction the proposed extension; and, if so, on what grounds?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): My information is to the effect that one fatal accident has occurred
recently on the stretches of road referred to in the application made by the Reigate Town Council, and that such accident could not be attributed to excessive speed or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The area within which the 10 mile speed limit applies was extended after a special investigation by an inspector of the Ministry held on the 11th February, 1921, and I have recently had the district revisited. It is not considered that any further revision is necessary. The Town Council has been advised to put up further warning signs.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Is it a fact that when the district was revisited the roads were closed to traffic?

Mr. NEAL: Yes, I think that is a fact. I do not think that had a material effect on the decision. It was inspected 12 months ago, and there was traffic at that time.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making inquiries at the time when the road is open?

Mr. NEAL: Certainly, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes it.

CYCLES (KEAR-LIGHTS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if his attention has been called to the death near Northampton of a lady cyclist who, while travelling without a rear light, was knocked down by a motor car and fatally injured; and whether he will consider the issue of a regulation making it compulsory for their own safety for cyclists to carry a rear light after lighting-up time?

Mr. NEAL: My attention has been called to the accident referred to and to the verdict of the Coroner's jury, which was to the effect that the deceased had died from a fractured skull after collision with a motor-car, but that there was insufficient evidence to attribute negligence to anyone. It was their opinion that if the deceased had carried a rear light she would have been alive now. They endorsed the opinion of the Coroner as to the desirability of the enforced use of tail lamps by cyclists. On the general question of the carrying of rear lights on bicycles, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for
Finchley (Colonel Newman) on 15th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration, before coming to a decision as suggested in the last part of the question, the number of accidents that have occurred before and since the rear light regulation was removed?

Mr. NEAL: There are no statistics which give the information.

Sir F. HALL: What are the reasons that cyclists give for not wishing to use rear lights?

Sir F. BANBURY: Would not one of the best ways of preventing these accidents be to see that motor-cars do not travel at reckless speed?

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

Sir F. HALL: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether any examination has recently been made by experts as to the stability of Westminster Bridge; if so, what was the result of the same; whether, since the introduction of heavy motor traffic and of tramways, the bridge has been strengthened to enable it to carry the increased volume and weight of the vehicles using it; and, if no recent examination of the bridge has been made, will he approach the authorities responsible for the upkeep of the structure with a view to a thorough inspection being carried out?

Mr. NEAL: The bridge is under constant examination by engineers of the London County Council, which is the authority responsible for its maintenance. So far as I am aware, no structural weaknesses of any kind have been revealed.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether careful inspection has been made by experts since this enormous traffic has been brought to bear on the bridge?

Mr. NEAL: This is a matter entirely for the London County Council, and it is only by their courtesy that I am able to give an answer.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Highways Committee of the London County Council on this very important subject?

Mr. NEAL: I will send them a copy of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, and my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. W. YOUNG: 91.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported to the Ministry as having taken place at Old Fargie, Perthshire, on the 7th instant, and confirmed by their veterinary inspector on the following day, on which date there were 10 cattle affected and 23 not affected; whether he is aware that the diseased animals were not killed until the 11th instant, by which time there were 23 affected; and why this delay and consequent loss and spread of the disease was not avoided by authorising the veterinary inspector to proceed to slaughter the affected animals without having to wait for instructions from headquarters?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The existence of disease in the case in question was confirmed on the 9th February, the authority to slaughter was sent on the 10th February. Owing to the nature of the premises, cremation could not be carried out by means of a large pit, each animal having to be cremated individually, and this may somewhat have delayed the disposal of the carcases. There are no grounds for supposing that further cattle became infected as a direct result of this delay since these animals must have been already infected on the 9th instant. The Ministry's Veterinary inspectors have authority to slaughter animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease if, in their opinion, it would be inadvisable to await the Ministry's covering sanction.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Would this not be better if it were under the control of the Scottish Board?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think so.

Mr. TOWNLEY: 97.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by his Department to counteract the erroneous impressions created in the public mind by references in the Press to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease as cattle plague and animal influenza?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: At the beginning of the present outbreak a Press Notice
was issued emphasising the fact that foot-and-mouth disease was not to be confused with cattle plague, and since then every opportunity has been taken to inform the Press as to the real character of the disease.

Mr. TOWNLEY: 98.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to an advertisement which has appeared in the Press from a firm manufacturing condensed milk which suggests that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has rendered liquid milk supplies unsafe; and whether any information in the possession of his Department tends to substantiate the suggestion?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington South on the 13th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT AND OATS (CLAIMS).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 92.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether all claims under the Agriculture (Repeal) Act have been settled; and what is the total sum expended to date in respect of such claims?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As regards claims in respect of wheat and oats produced in England and Wales, the total number paid up to and including the 25th February was 186,347, the total amount paid being £13,957,495. The number remaining unpaid is approximately 700, largely consisting of cases where the incoming and outgoing tenant have both claimed in respect of the same crops, and agreement has not yet been reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL HOLDINGS.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 93.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of small holdings to date; and what is the annual charge on the ratepayers and taxpayers in respect of them?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The total number of small holdings provided prior to the War was approximately 15,000. Since the inception of the Land Settlement Scheme, 15,030 fresh holdings have been
created by councils, and the total number of small holdings for the provision of which the councils have been responsible is, therefore, approximately 30,000. Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, the whole of the loss on the councils' small holdings undertakings falls in effect on the Exchequer until 1926. The amount placed on the Estimates for the current financial year to meet losses incurred in the financial year 1920–21 is £500,000.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the aggregate size of these holdings?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would prefer not to answer that question without notice.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 94.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many small holdings have been established in the county of Surrey and at what cost; and whether he has any information as to how many of the tenants are making a success of their holdings?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Prior to the War the Surrey County Council created 108 small holdings, and, in addition, let 114 acres to a co-operative small holdings association. Since the inception of the Land Settlement Scheme the council have created 148 additional holdings. The capital cost of the holdings provided prior to the War was approximately £82,000. As regards those post-war schemes, comprising 115 holdings, in respect of which the Ministry has approved the council's proposals for the equipment and letting of the land, the total capital cost is estimated at £131,688, or an average of £l,145 per holding. I have no information to indicate that the smallholders under the council will not make a success of their holdings.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH STORE CATTLE (DETENTION).

Captain DIXON: 96.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the detention of Irish store cattle is causing great loss to farmers; and whether he will now withdraw the Detention Order?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, I am aware that some loss is unfortunately being incurred by farmers in consequence
of the detention of Irish store cattle, but the situation with regard to foot-and-mouth disease has not yet improved sufficiently to justify me in withdrawing the Order.

Captain DIXON: Is it not the fact that there has been absolutely no disease of any kind in Ireland?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have said before that we have not been able to trace the actual existence of disease in Ireland, but apart from that the movements of Irish store cattle from market to market is, in my opinion, a very fruitful way of spreading disease, and we do not see our way at the present time to remove the Order.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Why not remove the embargo on Canadian cattle?

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not the fact that Irish store cattle, when in England, are found to have disease, and that when in Ireland apparently they do not have it?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Are we to take it as settled that the Irish Bill will be taken on Thursday and Friday of this week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I propose to allocate Thursday and Friday, if Friday be needed, for the Committee stage of the Irish Bill, and I hope to proceed with the other stages next week.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government Amendment to the Bill arising out of the Conferences of a few days ago will be put on the Order Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has just left the House, but I will ask him to get the Amendment put on the Paper as soon as possible.

Colonel GRETTON: Will not another Amendment be necessary because of the proposal that a Parliament should be elected to draw up a Constitution under the arrangement now come to that there should be no special Parliament called, but that the Constitution should be submitted to the electors.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What is proposed is that the Constitution should be published for the information of the electors before they are called upon to vote "yes" or "no" for the acceptance of the Treaty, and that it is not quite the same thing as my hon. and gallant Friend understood.

PERFORMING ANIMALS.

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Performing Animals in the First Session of 1921 be referred to the Select Committee on Performing Animals.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — CORONERS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CONTINUANCE) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Beading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill continues for the rest of this year two war-time enactments which otherwise would lapse to-morrow, namely, (1) the Coroners (Emergency Powers) Bill, 1917, which temporarily reduced the maximum number of jurors to be summoned from 23 to 12, and the minimum from 12 to 7; (2) Section 7 of the Juries Act, 1918, which enabled coroners to hold inquests without juries in certain cases. The whole question of coroners' juries was considered in 1910 by a Departmental Committee, but during the War it was impossible to put their recommendations, or such of them as were accepted, into statutory form, and the whole question is now being considered with a view to permanent legislation. In the meantime, these emergency provisions will save a considerable amount of money, and will also save a great amount of inconvenience. The powers of the present Act cease as from to-morrow, and therefore it is necessary that they should be renewed temporarily while the whole question of permanent legislation is being considered. All this Bill does is to extend from to-morrow until the 31st day of December this year those temporary provisions. They are provisions which have worked very well, and they have, as i have already stated, saved a considerable amount of money and obviated much inconvenience, and, so far as one is able to tell, they have not been the cause of miscarriages of justice of any sort. The whole question is now under revision, and we are considering permanent legislation dealing with the whole subject of coroners' work. For these reasons I ask the House to give a Second Beading to this Measure.

4.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There can be no objection to this Bill and its passage into law with all necessary speed. I
think, however, that we are entitled to complain that it has not been put down before. We are told it is required by to-morrow because that is the time when the present Act expires. I suggest that it would have been quite easy to have put this Bill down some day last week, and by this time we might have taken the Committee stage and the Third Beading, and the thing would have been complete before the present Act expires. This kind of thing has often been done since this Parliament began, and the old War habits are still with us. It is not right to introduce a Bill to-day in order to continue an Act which expires tomorrow when we ought to have had more time. I desire, as I am sure we all do, to see that no undue delay is occasioned. I am glad to hear that these new arrangements have operated so successfully, and more especially have operated more economically. As far as I am concerned, I shall certainly support the provisions of these two Acts that are now continued after to-morrow in a permanent form. I do not recollect the findings of the Committee to which the Home Secretary has referred, but I should imagine that they cover some recommendations to avoid overlapping between the magistrate's inquiry and that of the coroner. There can be, nothing more difficult for professional and civilian witnesses than to have their time fooled about between a magistrate's inquiry which is sometimes going on the very same day as the coroner's jury has been summoned. That, I suppose, is a matter which is within the ambit of the recommendations of the Committee to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and I hope those recommendations will be put into legislative, form as speedily as possible, so that those of them that are practicable can be passed into law at the earliest moment.

Mr. PERCY: There can be no question that the war-time provisions contained in the two Acts referred to in this Bill can very well be carried forward into the days of peace, with very great advantage to the public. It will be observed that the provisions in this Bill continue only to the 31st December. The Home Secretary has informed the House that he proposes to bring in a more comprehensive Bill before the end of the Session, but suppose, by way of argument, that anything untoward should occur, say the
very remote possibility of a General Election, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from bringing in such a Bill? Can we be assured that these provisions will be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, which will be brought in, I presume, before the end of this Parliament?

Major C. LOWTHER: I venture, with great humility, to reinforce the remarks of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in so far as he mentioned the question of a number of very necessary Amendments that must be made in the law with regard to coroners' and magistrates' inquiries? The Home Office must have been well aware that this Bill was expiring to-morrow, and must have known that for some time there has been a feeling in legal circles that there has been duplication of business by magisterial and coroners' inquiries, and I feel they have acted in rather a slipshod manner in allowing the Act to get so near its expiry that we are left with only one day in which to take action. We have been accustomed in this Parliament to promises which have or have not been fulfilled, and the Home Secretary, in saying he hopes to give legislative effect to what everybody must urgently desire, is not going quite far enough. The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman when he intended to bring in a Bill to deal with this matter, and he gave a reply which is not uncommon on those benches, that the matter was receiving consideration, but that he could not give any sort of a date. He could have come to us with a great deal more force and strength in his observations if he had been -able to say to-day: "Before such and such a date we intend to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the law in that particular respect." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make himself acquainted with the very real desire, not only in this House but in the country, for the simplification and amendment of the law, and I trust that when he gets Second Reading to-day he will, if I may humbly venture to request him to do so, bear in mind that if he can pass into law that which is in everybody's mind, he will have done one good service for which we shall all be grateful to him.

Mr. THOMAS: I have only one or two words to say so far as our party are
concerned. We are supporting the Bill, but we do not agree with the suggestion put forward from the other side, that the Government are not responsible for the lapse of time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows perfectly well that this Bill could have been introduced at the opening of this Session.

Mr. SHORTT: It was introduced in another place.

Mr. THOMAS: I know, but there was nothing to prevent the whole matter being raised last week or the week before.

Mr. SHORTT: Except that it had not come down to us from another place. We could not deal with it until it came to us.

Mr. THOMAS: That makes it worse, because my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the Government decided to introduce it first in another place. Then what answer is that? It is absurd to say, after they had decided they would introduce it in a particular way, that that is a reason why they could not introduce it here. The fact of the matter is, it was either forgotten, and the fact that the existing procedure was expiring has only just been discovered, or that internal differences were so occupying you that you had not time to take the matter into consideration. It is one of the two. So far as the permanent amending Bill is concerned, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in mind that there is a real desire in the country for the reorganisation entirely of coroners' courts. It is true that a recent case has brought prominently to the public notice some of the anomalies, but he will understand there are many others existing, and that the time has arrived to review the whole of the situation. Generally, we believe that this Bill gives effect to something which has proved to be an advantage, and we are prepared to facilitate the passage of the Bill.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Apprehension has been expressed to mo in certain quarters 'as to whether the position of poor people who meet with accidents is prejudiced in any way by the abolition of juries. I know that coroners are most estimable people and see justice done, but the fear has been expressed, as claims for compensation are dependent, to a certain extent, upon the findings at the Coroners' Court, that the absence of a jury may prejudice the full inquiry which should
take place at an inquest. I do not believe that is a well-founded apprehension, but I should like to have the assurance that this point will be considered, especially so as what is done to-day will no doubt determine the more permanent legislation which is to follow. It is feared that the poor may possibly be sacrificing some protection which the jury afforded them, and I wish to be assured that the position of such people, who are unable to protect themselves, will not be prejudiced. They feel there is some special safeguard, and although the decision on which compensation rests is based upon the finding of another court, the original inquiry must have an effect on the ultimate finding.

Mr. SHORTT: Just in reply to that last point. The interest of any such persons cannot be affected in any way whatever. The decision of the coroners' jury has absolutely no effect upon compensation, none whatever.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).—[Mr. Shortt.]

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1931 to 1921, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The Supplementary Estimate, which I have to present to the Committee is for the sum of £10. This
Vote, which the Committee will recognise, is a token vote, arises from the fact that we have, during the financial year 1921–22, with the consent of the Treasury transferred the sum which was surplus to the Estimates for that year to meet excess expenditure on public health and on housing materials. Savings have been made in the central administration, housing, and health insurance, and a sum of about £3,800,000 represents the surplus to the Estimate. We ask the Committee for consent to make use of £1,587,000 of this, in order to meet expenditure which I shall presently explain. There will remain, the Committee will observe, a net surplus provision of £2,200,000, which, of course, will be surrendered to the Treasury at the end of the financial year, out of which sum no less than something like £2,000,000 will have to be revoted in the Estimates of next year in order to deal with the private builders' subsidy. The surplus of £3,800,000 is, roughly,, made up as follows. There is a saving of £365,000 on central administration due, very largely, to considerable reductions in staff, rendered possible to some extent by the restriction of the housing programme. The next large element of saving is £2,100,000 on housing. This arises, not from any stoppage of the assisted scheme for local authorities, but from the fact that, owing to the, delay in obtaining legislation for the extension of the private builders' subsidy, the number of houses completed by 31st; March, 1922, under the subsidy was fewer than was anticipated. Of course, it is not a net saving, because these houses are being built and will be completed at a later date, and the money for them will be required in the next financial year.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not understand those figures. The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with anticipated savings, I understand, which will make it necessary to vote only £l0. Amongst other sums he read out was £2,000,000 of anticipated savings on housing—I am not grumbling at all about those savings—whereas the whole anticipated saving is set down as £1,586,000.

Sir A. MOND: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member has not quite seen the point. The saving is merely a transfer of the money from the one Vote to the other, and the sum of £10 is put
down for the purpose of Parliamentary convenience, as otherwise we could not have any discussion. There is a saving of £1,350,000 on National Health Insurance. That is partly due to sickness benefit claims being less than was anticipated and partly through savings on the reduction of the doctors' remuneration, which resulted from the last negotiations and came into operation as from 1st January, 1922. The saving for this financial year under that heading is £250,000. There is an additional sum required of £514,000 under the sub-head of tuberculosis. It is required, first, because there was an under-estimate when the Estimates were made out of the amount required for balance of grants in 1920–21 of £200,000, and an under-estimate of the balance of grants required for 1921–22 of £250,000; and there is an increase required in grants towards capital expenditure of £64,000.
Under the present system of the tuberculosis grants the State provides half of the approved net cost of the local authorities' expenditure. The local authorities receive an advance of a portion of the money due to them, and a year later they receive the balance. These periods do not quite coincide with the financial year period, and the result is that the Estimate is apt not to agree with the total amount at which the grant finally comes out when it has to be paid. That explains the difficulty of framing the Estimates very closely. Owing to the large increase of the costs during these periods for maintenance, for keeping patients and so on, the grants were larger than had been anticipated. Under the system we are adopting for next year of stereotyping the grant paid the year before, it is hoped that under-estimates will not take place again. There is another small amount for the Welsh Board of Health under the next Sub-head, Q4, the Committee will see that the original Estimate was £32,000, and the revised Estimate £55,000, and that the additional sum required is £23,000. This arises largely under the heading of maternity and child welfare. It represents unforeseen increases in the expenditure of local authorities on account of the supply of milk to necessitous mothers during the coal strike and during the present serious period of unemployment. I am not complaining
that local authorities have spent more money on milk for the necessitous at such a time.
Another item in the Supplementary Estimates arises in connection with the purchase of housing materials. The revised Estimate shows an increase of £800,000 over the original Estimate. I need not go back into the history of the Department of Building Materials Supply. It was begun originally under the Ministry of Munitions for the purpose of buying bricks, slates, and other materials for local authorities when housing schemes were started. It then passed into the control of the Ministry of Health, and I have been engaged in liquidating it since I accepted office. The scheme had its justification when it was commenced. It was part of the attempt to get our industries going on demobilisation, when practically all the brickyards of the country were out of commission and building materials were almost non-existent. Although it may be said that better figures might have been reached, yet if you look at the whole thing in a large way it will be agreed that if no steps had been taken by the Government prices would have risen even higher than they did rise, and building would have been even more difficult than it was. I have been engaged for a considerable time in cancelling a number of the contracts for bricks not now required under the restricted housing scheme. Local authorities on more than one occasion have expressed the view that they can buy more cheaply if left to buy for themselves, and although that may not always be the case, yet I am in favour of local authorities adopting what they think is the best procedure for themselves.

Mr. HURD: What is happening to the stocks?

Sip A. MOND: They are mainly being used up at competitive prices or in some cases are being re-sold to the makers by private sale on the best terms that we can obtain. Cancellation of the contracts has not been an easy matter. It calls for careful and intelligent negotiation. On the whole, I think the trade has met us very reasonably. Considerable numbers of the contracts have been cancelled without compensation. Others have been cancelled on terms. All these calculations have taken place with Treasury
approval. I have devoted a considerable amount of my own personal time to this matter since I took office, because I was very uneasy on the subject from the first day I became Minister of Health. There were enormous obligations for years to come. I am glad to say that we have managed to liquidate these large commitments on what I regard as very reasonable terms, and the amount I am asking the House now to grant for compensation, namely, £250,000, is by no means unreasonable considering the size of the contracts and the number of transactions involved.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the whole of the £250,000 for bricks?

Sir A. MOND: It is practically all for bricks.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How many bricks has the right hon. Gentleman on hand now?

Sir A. MOND: We shall have about 20,000,000 bricks on hand on the 31st March. They will be handed over to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. We have also commitments for light castings for about £40,000. The value of the stock being carried over to next year, excluding bricks, will not exceed £100,000. We have cancelled 177 contracts for 142,000,000 bricks without any compensation. We have cancelled 197 contracts in respect of 336,000,000 bricks with compensation, and we have cancelled about 73 contracts in respect of 31,000,000 tiles, of which 69 are without compensation. There are also about 90 miscellaneous contracts. We have got through the bulk of the work, but still have about 20,000,000 bricks to hand over. It is not a very large number, and I have no doubt we shall be able to dispose of them in reasonable time.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will have to ask for another Estimate when he has disposed of these bricks?

Sir A. MOND: I hope not. I should like to see what the bricks fetch before giving a definite answer to that question. Everything depends on the prices realised.

Dr. MURRAY: Why is compensation paid in one case and not in another?

Sir F. BANBURY: The compensation was given in the case of the Scotch firms; the English firms did without it.

Sir A. MOND: It depends on the terms of the original contracts.

Mr. J. WALLACE: Of the total value of the contracts cancelled, what percentage is represented by this £250,000?

Sir A. MOND: I will make a note of that question, and obtain an answer. Of course, the difficulty is there has been a very large fall in the price of bricks. We have had to deal in this matter with large trade organisations which have realised that the Government had to economise, and have consequently met us fairly well. I have some figures here showing the variations in prices. In the early part of 1919 the lowest price of bricks was 58s.; in 1921 the highest price was 72s.; now it is about 65s. There have been ups and downs during the period, but some of the earlier contracts became far more favourable when prices went up.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Had the bricks been produced or not?

Sir A. MOND: In some cases there are actual stocks which the manufacturers had to take back, but in many cases the contracts were forward contracts and the bricks had not been produced. We should, however, have been legally bound to take them over under our bargain, and therefore it was only a question of cancelling a legal obligation on the best terms we could secure. I think I have covered fairly fully the various points in the Supplementary Estimate. I shall, of course, be very pleased to reply on any further point which hon. Members may raise in the course of the discussion.

Mr. MYERS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
I am exceedingly obliged for the statement which has been made. The right hon. Gentleman has given us very voluminous information with respect to the various activities of his Department and in justification of the Supplementary Estimate which he has just presented to the Committee, but I have no doubt that, after a discussion, much more information will be forthcoming. Having regard to the position which has been set forth such further information is abundantly necessary. I want to refer briefly to the item under the head of the Treatment of Tuberculosis. The right hon. Gentleman informed the House that the grant should have been £250,000 more than it
was in order to make up for the expenditure which has been incurred. I am not going to complain about the additional expenditure on the treatment of tuberculosis. I view with considerable regret suggestions from any quarter that some reduction should take place. As a matter of fact, the expenditure on it is altogether inadequate at present. A large number of men have been discharged from the Army who are suffering from tuberculosis and are claiming attention at the hands of the various committees interested in this subject. The waiting lists among the civilian population are heavy, and the sanatoria throughout the country are quite insufficient to meet the demands from the civilian and military populations. Again, too much of this expenditure is wanted and we do not get as much advantage from the money spent as we ought to. In the near future in addition to providing more sanatoria accommodation we want to secure a national scheme of after-care treatment, because until we get some systematic plan for after-care treatment we cannot hope to obtain the full benefit of the money we expend.
I desire next to say a word or two in respect to the item relating to the purchase of housing material and compensation for cancellation of contracts. It was somewhat in the nature of a surprise to hear the right hon. Gentleman claim that his Department had saved £2,500,000 on housing. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to tell us that this £2,500,000 was not actually saved, but that it represented money which would have been spent if the housing policy of the Government had been proceeded with, for then it would have been handed over in subsidies to the builders. He also told us that this sum of £2,500,000 had been otherwise used for the activities of his Department. That is equivalent to saying that by taking a shilling out of one pocket and putting it into another you are making a saving. I was also interested to hear that £250,000 had been saved on the sickness benefit and by the reduction in the remuneration of doctors, but again that that has been used in other Departments of the Ministry of Health. In respect of the item for the purchase of housing material the right hon. Gentleman intimated that this was part of the policy inaugurated a few years ago under the Ministry of Munitions, but I venture to suggest that
the policy which has been pursued in respect of the purchase of building materials by the Ministry of Health has no relation to the policy pursued by the Ministry of Munitions, and I will suggest that if the same policy had been pursued by the two Ministries the need for a Supplementary Estimate would have been very largely unnecessary. Obviously, if the prices of any articles are regarded as excessively high—that is to say, articles required by the community in any direction—it is the duty of the Government, as custodian of the public well being, to take such action as will reduce those prices and bring any advantage accruing therefrom to the community.
The Ministry of Health did not move in that direction. It operated in an exactly opposite direction, for it stiffened the prices of articles on the market. The Ministry went into the market to purchase building material at a time when prices were admittedly high. They had definite reports as to what was causing the inflated prices of these building materials. I have here a volume containing the whole of the Profiteering Committees' Reports—a complete list of about 50. I find there are about seven Reports by the Committee dealing specifically with bricks, sand, lime, slates, stone, and internal fittings of houses. These Reports indicate that sand had increased in price by 214 per cent., lime by 263 per cent., cement by 204 per cent., kitchen ranges 320 per cent., rain-water pipes 317 per cent., sinks 388 per cent., baths 159 per cent., tiles 275 per cent., drain pipes 261 per cent., York stone 464 per cent., bricks 178 per cent., and plasterers' laths 405 per cent. These Reports were issued in the latter part of 1920 and early in 1921, and despite the knowledge thus in the possession of the Ministry we find they went into the market and spent £4,000,000 in the purchase of building materials, the result of their action being not to bring prices down, but to operate in an exactly opposite direction.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his policy in this direction was similar to that pursued by the Ministry of Munitions. I challenge straight away the accuracy of that statement. When the Ministry of Munitions found that they were being penalised by being asked high prices for particular articles, they started
manufacturing those articles. Speaking in this House on the 15th December, 1915, the Prime Minister declared that by following that policy £15,000,000 had already been saved. The right hon. Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison), speaking in June, 1917, said the activities of the Ministry of Munitions had been such that they were producing an explosive at 8½d. a, lb. for which the Government had been charged Is. 9d. per lb. The Secretary for India, who was then Minister of Munitions, on the 8th August, 1916, estimated that the Department over which he had control at that time had saved £41,000,000 upon lead, tin and spelter, while the present Postmaster-General, who was then Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Munitions, stated that they had succeeded in bringing down the price of the Lewis guns from £112 to £80.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that these examples are cited in order to illustrate the policy which the Ministry of Health might have adopted. The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter at greater length.

Mr. MYERS: I am sorry if I have enlarged too much upon that point, but I desired to illustrate that what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Health having the same policy could not be substantiated by the facts of the case. We on this side say that the policy which was followed by the Ministry of Munitions for the purpose of providing those things which the country needed in war time should also have been followed in the provision of those things which the people need in peace time. The provision of houses was, and is, just as necessary in peace time as munitions were in war time, and we should have no complaint to make if the policy of the Ministry of Munitions had been followed in regard to securing and providing building materials. As it was, we had Ministers talking upon public platforms in the country about houses for heroes, and at the same time we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch engaged in endeavouring to carry out an impossible policy, with the profiteer and the moneylender on his back. When the penalty for that was discovered, the right hon. Gentleman was superseded, and the
present Minister of Health took his place. He at once put up the shutters at the Ministry of Health, and put outside the label, "Business suspended pending alterations"; and he is in the position of standing at the door intimating to the public that there is no admission, that there is no more work to be done in that Department. His greatest concern is not the person who wants to get work done and to improve the health of the community, but rather the person who gets in the way and is not particularly anxious whether anything at all is done or not.
The price which the Ministry of Health in these circumstances has given for building materials has determined the price of the houses, and has made the housing scheme an absolute impossibility. Every £100 that a house costs entails an interest charge of £6 a year, and if the Ministry of Health had adopted, in securing these building materials, a reasonable policy, the policy which they ought to have adopted, they could, on a fair Estimate, have reduced the cost of those houses by £200 per house. That would have in volved a reduction in interest charges of £12 a year—the rent of an average house in pre-War days—and the tremendous national charge which is now upon the Exchequer of £10,000,000 a year to meet the financial responsibility upon those houses could have been reduced by at least one-fifth. When those houses had been erected at these exorbitant prices—due in the main to the high charges for building materials—it was decided by the local authorities, and recommended by the Ministry of Health, that preference in regard to those houses should be given to ex-service men, and, to the credit of the local authorities of the country be it said, they acted upon that suggestion, and those houses that have been erected are largely occupied by ex-service men. I see in a Report to which frequent reference has been made during the last few days—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the disposition of the houses, who are the tenants, etc., and so on, can fall within this Vote.

Mr. MYERS: Am I not in order in referring to the price of houses and the rents which accrue owing to the price of materials?

The CHAIRMAN: This is an Estimate for certain excesses in connection with tuberculosis, maternity and child welfare, purchase of housing materials, and compensation to contractors. The hon. Member has been perfectly in order in referring to the cost of housing materials and the method adopted by the Ministry of Health to obtain housing materials, and he will be in order in referring to the terms on which the contracts were liquidated; but I do not think he can go beyond that ambit into a general discussion of the housing question, the rents to be charged, and so on. He must connect it with one of the items set forth in the Estimate.

Dr. ADDISON: Is not the hon. Member entitled to discuss the policy which led to the payment of £250,000 for compensation to contractors?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, but I think the hon. Member was going somewhat beyond that into questions of policy with regard to rents and with regard to the class of persons to whom the houses were to be let.

Mr. MYERS: I suggest that the price of houses has been somewhere about £1,000 per house, and that that has been very largely caused by the price of building materials. The price of building materials has been adversely influenced by the policy of the Ministry of Health, and they have here an Estimate of £4,000,000, with an addition of £800,000, for the purpose of paying for those building materials to-day at their inflated price on the market, which ultimately determined the price of the houses and the rents that have to be charged. The result of the financial burden upon the houses does not finish there. There are higher rates on the assessment, and higher water charges. In the case of houses which have been built in my own division under the scheme of the Ministry of Health, nearly £4 a year is being imposed for domestic water charges, and, with the rent in the region of £20 a year, the extra rates and the extra water charges, these ex-service men, burdened as they are with these high charges, are wonder—ing what they have done that that penalty should be imposed upon them, and the bulk of them would like to clear out of the, houses, but they are unable to find accommodation elsewhere. That is the
result of the policy of the Ministry of Health which has forced up the price of building materials. We do not on this side of the House like destructive criticism; it is not usually in our line. We like to get things done. Some of us have done our bit in the direction of public health administration, and we thought that any little that we could do in this direction might be useful to the right hon. Gentleman's Department. None of our assistance, however, is wanted; no help is required. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman does not want to do anything; he wants to suspend operations in this direction; but the penalty that we are putting on the next generation will be found, and the gospel of economy, if it be a gospel of economy, that is responsible for this proceeding, will come back upon us with compound interest in the form of further expenditure.
Now I turn to the last item in the Estimate, namely, the £250,000 paid to contractors. We gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that that is in respect, not of contracts for building houses, but of contracts for the purchase of bricks. We also find that he has 20,000,000 bricks at the present time on hand, for which, presumably, these in flated prices have been paid. What a policy—or rather, what a lack of policy—stopping the erection of houses and going on purchasing bricks, and purchasing them at inflated prices! The landlords of the country have done exceptionally well out of these housing schemes, and the makers of materials, according to these Profiteering reports, have not done altogether badly—

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: What about Labour?

Mr. J. JONES: Labour has not done well. There are 100,000 building trade workers out of work.

Mr. MYERS: We were to erect houses—houses for heroes—and we claim—

Mr. J. JONES: We are building mansions for "profiteeroes"!

Mr. MYERS: The landlords sold their land to advantage, and the makers of materials did exceptionally well, according to these Profiteering reports. I would ask if anything has been done by way of negotiations between these con-
tractors and the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Is it an unreasonable suggestion to make that the Ministry of Health might have adopted another method? The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the method of giving something for nothing. We should not have adopted that method; we should have brought the Department into touch with the contractors, and should have said, "Look here, the price of bricks upon the; market is falling, and, having regard to the fact that the contract with you was made at a certain price per thousand, will you permit us to set aside that figure and let the contract stand at a reduced rate?"

Sir A. MOND: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but there are one or two things that I should like to say with regard to that. Firstly, I do not know how we could cancel a contract without being in touch with the contractor. Secondly, as I have pointed out, a large number of these contracts were cancelled without compensation; and, thirdly, I do not know how the hon. Member is going to get a man with a profitable contract to surrender it for nothing, except by that charm of manner which he, perhaps, possesses.

Mr. MYERS: I will answer that promptly. If any negotiation has taken place between the Ministry of Health and those firms who made contracts to sell bricks at high prices, and if that negotiation has failed to lead to an amicable agreement, and those firms desire to hold the Government by the contract—with the patriotism that is characteristic of those who sell bricks, but not of those who make them—that is no justification whatever for the Government putting its hand into the taxpayer's pocket and taking out £250,000 to pay to those contractors who have declined to meet the Government in view of the changed conditions which prevail in the commercial world at the present time. I feel that the Government are not altogether anxious on this matter. What they are doing in respect of the payment of compensation to contractors is only on all-fours with what they are doing in other directions. We on this side of the House used to be stigmatised as a set of people who believed in sharing out. The Government appear on this policy to be the people who are doing the sharing out. First it was the railway companies; then
it was the colliery proprietors; then it was the farmers; now it is the people who make bricks for the community. Something for nothing is the policy of the Government all round, and, so far as this Department is concerned, since the installation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if I may say so respectfully, the general policy of the Department has been-hopeless, helpless and futile, and cannot be described as being a sound public health policy for the nation at large.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down ought, really to have considered why it was that this Supplementary Estimate is necessary. He explained that it was necessary owing to the exorbitant cost of material for-building, but he did not say how that exorbitant price originated and what it was in the first instance that started the disastrous policy which has resulted in this Supplementary Estimate. May I refer him to a pamphlet published by the" Labour party in 1918, entitled "Labour and the New Social Order"? In that pamphlet he will see laid down word for word the exact policy which has produced this Supplementary Estimate, a policy which was adopted by the right hon. Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison). That policy was that a gigantic national housing scheme should be undertaken, that it should be carried out by municipal authorities, and that the money provided for carrying it out should not be raised by those local authorities but should be at direct charge on the taxpayer, so that those who raised the money should have-nothing to do with the spending of it-The right hon. Gentleman arranged that nothing more than a penny rate should come on those who were responsible for spending the money and that everything beyond a penny rate should come upon the taxpayer, so inevitably, as I have pointed out again and again, he produced a corner in the market for building material, and not only in the market for building material but in the market for building labour. He introduced into a market where supplies were already very short, indeed a customer determined to buy to any extent, at any price, and with apparently infinite financial resources.

Dr. ADDISON: Am I right in understanding that the hon. Member's state-
ment is that I originated the 1d. rate policy and the policy of buying material in this way?

Mr. HOPKINSON: My statement is that the policy of the Government, as carried out by the right hon. Gentleman, was to make those who were responsible for the spending of the money not responsible for raising it. In those days the right hon. Gentleman's heart beat as one with the heart of the Prime Minister, and it is therefore very difficult to disentangle what policies are to be attributed to him and what to the Prime Minister. This policy was proposed and laid down in that pamphlet published by the Labour party. It was insisted upon in a further pamphlet called "Labour and Reconstruction," published just before the Armistice, and that policy was adopted—it may not have been by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but, at any rate, by the Government, and he had to put it into effect, with disastrous results, of which this Estimate is, I hope, the final outcome. I should explain that when there is a shortage of any commodity in the market and someone comes along, apparently with endless funds, determined to buy any amount of the commodity at any price, what commercial people call a corner is produced, and the price mounts up day by day. We saw it in the case of bricks. I myself was building at that time when the right hon. Gentleman's policy began to take effect. Bricks went up week by week in price, cement went up, and every sort of building materials went up, and an Estmate of this sort becomes necessary under these conditions when the market is very fluctuating and it is impossible for anyone, however experienced, to know where he is going to land next. Not only did he make this corner in building material, but he also made a complete corner in labour in the building trade. Not only did the price of bricks go up to exorbitant heights, but the price of laying them went up even more in proportion. I have seen within my own experience men in the building trade deliberately making the cost of houses so much more than it need have been that they have added, in some cases—one particular trade has added as much as Is. 3d. a week to the rent of a house in perpetuity—deliberate slacking and deliberate increase in the cost
It does not become hon. Members opposite connected with the building trade to accuse builders' merchants and those who provide the raw material for building of profiteering. They profiteered, undoubtedly. They formed rings of various sorts to rig the market, but there is nothing, no dishonesty, no unpatriotic deed, no greediness of profiteering that any merchant in the trade has ever perpetrated that goes beyond what the building trades themselves have perpetrated. They have formed rings just as much as the brickmakers or those engaged in supplying any other building materials. They have deliberately put up the price of housing against the working classes. They have deliberately subjected the taxpayer to an infinitely greater burden, and of all these empty cupboards and cold hearths the building trade operative is responsible for quite a large proportion. £10,000,000 per annum of the taxpayers' money, which means the money of the industrial workers in the long run, is being thrown away year by year to pay for this costly experiment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and for the deliberate restriction of output of the trade operatives. Therefore, common shame might keep hon. Members opposite silent instead of pretending, like, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), knowing the whole time that it is a mere pretence, that Labour has assisted in any way to solve the housing problem. Again, the hon. Member spoke of landlords making money out of housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] May I explain to the hon. Member, and to those who say "Hear, hear!" that it is just possible they know absolutely nothing about the situation. I can say this from my own experience. The only difference between myself and hon. Members opposite is that they have talked a very great deal of foolishness about housing, whereas I have actually done something to house the working classes. As far as the price of land is concerned, I may tell the hon. Member what he probably does not know. What can he know about the price of land? I was purchasing land for housing schemes in my district before the War, and I was purchasing subsequently, and I was able to get excellent land in every way for housing the working classes at a lower price after the War than before it, and
the experience of friends of mine who have endeavoured to solve the problem instead of talking about it has been exactly the same as my own.
I do not deny that municipalities buying land have probably had to pay high prices at times, and for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman opposite set up a Land Valuation Department which was going to examine his tenders, and see whether they ought to be reduced or not, and he had pretty considerable powers to make a reduction. Obviously then if a land owner had land worth £200 an acre, when the municipality offered to buy it for a housing scheme the market asked £400. The right hon. Gentleman's Department went into the question very carefully and reduced it to £300, and he went about boasting of the hundreds of thousands he had saved. The thing was notorious throughout the suburban districts. Hon. Members opposite talk as if they were in the habit, in those far away days when they used to do useful labour, of refusing to accept high wages, as if the ordinary workers, particularly hon. Members themselves, did not take absolutely every penny they could lay their hands upon and buy everything they wanted as cheaply as possible. Is there any reason to suppose that any hon. Member opposite has not all his life, and will not continue for the rest of his life, to take every penny he possibly can for his labour —his contribution to the price—or any other thing he has to sell I They get up and say, "Observe the profiteer. Observe the man who makes bricks. People offer him £3 a 1,000. He accepts it instead of saying, 'No, I could sell these bricks for £2 15s. if I were only honest.'" What is the good of hon. Members talking nonsense such as that? They do not appreciate what is at the bottom of Estimates like this. It is their public policy that produces this result and leads to this expenditure. I have referred them to two publications of their party in which they lay down these principles which have led to this Supplementary Estimate and have led to the complete breakdown of the Government's housing scheme. After all if men spend the whole of their time in endeavouring to become rich and completely fail in that object, surely that -does not justify them in setting up to he financial experts and dictating to us, who presumably had the same desire and
have succeeded, exactly how the finance of any Government scheme should be conducted. I leave hon. Members opposite with that little night thought.

Mr. J. JONES: We have the opportunity in this House sometimes of listening to lectures delivered more or less with good intentions. At other times we are listening to the prototypes of the dismal Dean, who generally set out with the object of trying to teach their grandmother the way to suck eggs. We on these Benches do not pretend to be political economists. All we know about economy is that we have always had to practise it because we belong to the class that generally have to earn their breakfast before they can eat it, and they generally see more dinner times than dinners. May I remind the hon. Member who has just condescended to sit down that some of us have not spent our lives trying to get rich. We have tried our best to escape being so poor as not to be able to fulfil our proper responsibilities. I live in an ordinary working-class cottage and have never lived anywhere else, so I know something about the housing question. In our district it is not a housing question, but a warehousing question. The hon. Member has been able to commit an act of voluntary sacrifice and give up a mansion to live in a cottage; I can congratulate him upon the experiment. He will probably in a few years from now begin to understand what it is that the ordinary workman is up against in the matter of the housing problem. The ordinary workman living in an ordinary house has to face all the responsibility of paying all the costs that you people talk so glibly about. He pays for everything—the man who produces everything. He is the only one who can pay. Therefore, there are many people in this House who pay for nothing, although they are always grumbling about what they have to pay. We of the Labour party are being lectured perpetually because we point out that the workers are the last people and the first people who have to pay all the increased costs that may be placed upon the country in consequence of any policy that may be pursued.
The hon. Member went out of his way to lecture the building trade in particular. I am a member of the building trade. I happened to be a builder's labourer before I became accidentally a
Member of Parliament. Of course, it was an accident that I became a Member of Parliament, just as it was with a lot of other people, who are now being shoved out faster than they came in. I want to remind the hon. Member that we in the building trade have had a certain procedure by which our wages were fixed. For years and years we have had a Conciliation Board. This House believes in Conciliation Boards for the fixing of wages, the regulating of conditions of employment, and the making of arrangements between employers and employed. For over 30 years we have had such an arrangement in the building trade. Does the hon. Member say that that is a wrong policy? During the War we were controlled practically by a court established by the Government in order that the War might be properly conducted to a satisfactory issue. I challenge the statement of the hon. Member, and I say that the building trade has not controlled its own wages. Although there was a shortage of workmen, and although we had the power to take advantage of our economic opportunity under the law of supply and demand, we did not do so.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member does not understand that the question of the rise and fall of wages is not merely a question of money values, but a question of the amount of work done in return for wages. When the Conciliation Board has finished with the job of fixing the money value of a bricklayer's wage, the-bricklayer decides whether he will lay a really honest toll of bricks per day or only one quarter of what he might honestly lay.

Mr. JONES: That old statement has been made so often that it is about time it got its death knell. I challenge the hon. Member to say why it is that if that statement is true that the master builders, and those who have made the statement, have not been prepared to accept the challenge of the Building Trade Federation for an inquiry into the matter. I do not want to say that the workmen are all angels, but they are just as less devils as the other people. So far as wages and the conditions of employment are concerned, the workmen and the employer for over 30 years in the building trade had a mutual arrangement whereby these matters were settled.
How can the workmen, therefore, be charged with taking advantage of the nation in certain circumstances? We are told by the hon. Member that we limited production.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: Who limited production first? What is the curse of the building trade? What is the curse of casual employment to-day? It is the fact that a man is never sure of a day's work, and the result is that he thinks that by hanging on for a time he will guarantee longer employment. That is the curse which creates the problem. If the hon. Member and those who think with him will try to solve that problem of intermittent and casual employment, they will encourage the working man to work, instead of discouraging him, as the present-day conditions do. Through the building trade guilds, we, of the building trade, because we are in control of them, have reduced the cost of production of houses by about 15 per cent. That is because the workers have an interest in their employment, because they have a guaranteed week and full wages for their work, and because they know that nobody is taking advantage of them. In the building trade guilds we are carrying on work in a most highly scientific and practical manner. The Government have given £250,000 of public money to contractors for doing nothing. The Government thought that they would save £1 by giving away 10s., and the result was that men had to go on to the unemployment exchanges and receive 15s. per week unemployment pay, which is not counted against the £250,000. Then the hon. Member puts up his hands in holy horror and says: "Please, Sir, it is not my fault; it is the fault of the other fellow." Is not the hon. Member one of them? Whatever the Government has done, he has their ticket in his pocket.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I have not, I must deny that allegation.

Mr. JONES: I only want to say that the hon. Member at the last Genera] Election was one of the candidates that ran against the workers.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I must really protest against these expressions.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member may say that he is not one of them, but people
cannot deny their parentage by saying that they are not their father's sons. The fact remains that every time the Government has been in trouble we have discovered the hon. Member, although he attacks the Labour party, generally walking into the Lobby with the Government.

Mr. HOPKINSON: That, again, is not true.

Mr. JONES: I am not particularly interested in the virtues which the hon. Member may possess, but I am more particularly interested in the virtues he does not possess.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Let us hear them.

Mr. JONES: We are attacking the policy of the Minister of Health because at the present time he is not a Minister of Health but a Minister of bad health. Attempts are being made to place full responsibility upon the late Minister of Health, who has resigned office.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: That shows that when you have been elected to support the Government and you do so, you turn round when something goes wrong, and, say that one man is responsible for the policy, and that the whole of the Government is not responsible. Either you meant to build houses for the people and to make England a land fit for heroes to, live in, or you were telling lies to the people at the last General Election when you said you were going to do these things.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I have never said anything of the sort, either by implication or by words.

Mr. JONES: I cannot imagine the hon. Member ever saying anything worth listening to in that particular respect. The hon. Member denies anything he has ever said.

Mr. HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in accusing other hon. Members of lying? The hon. Member knows absolutely nothing whatever as to what I said or what I have not said at the General Election or elsewhere.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member made a speech in which he referred at some length to hon. Mem-
bers on the opposite side of the Committee and he should not misunderstand the reply.

Mr. JONES: I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity of education equal to that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore possibly I do not understand the English language as they do, being an Irishman. When hon. Members opposite start throwing bouquets about, they must not be surprised if rhubarb is thrown back. We are not prepared to accept the suggestion that we are out to rob the nation while they are out to enrich it by taking all the advantage they can of the necessities of the people. We have protested against the policy of the Minister of Health in the matter of housing because we know what the effect of that policy is. The building trade today are proving by their own organisation that they are able to provide houses on a reasonable basis, taking present-day facts into consideration. Why have not the Government supported the building trade guilds as much as they have supported the contractors? Why have they not given to the building trade guilds the same amount of financial support they have given to the contractors? Why have they not given to these social experiments for productive capacity the same support that they have given to private individuals, who are simply out to make profit out of a public necessity? It is because we are set up against the policy that has been pursued in the matter of housing by the present Minister of Health that we are supporting the Motion for a reduction in the Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: I will endeavour to bring the Committee back to the subject matter of the Vote. The hon. Member who moved the reduction was apparently under the impression that if the Government had manufactured the building materials themselves this Vote would not have been necessary. The experience which everybody has had in regard to what happens when the Government enters into business has been absolutely to the contrary. Whenever the Government has gone into business—I am not speaking about exceptional cases during the War—in the ordinary way of becoming manufacturers or retailers or anything of that kind, the result has always been a loss. Therefore, the remedy suggested by the hon. Member seems to me to be
a very unfortunate one. The only result would have been that instead of having to find £800,000 we should have had to have found a great deal more.
I should like to ask the Minister of Health whether this £800,000 for the purchase of housing materials, etc., is likely to be exceeded. Is the £800,000 likely to meet all the obligations? Apparently we shall have to find the money to meet the obligations of a mistaken policy, but I should like, to know whether there will be any further sums to be found. When we come to the question of compensation to contractors it is very difficult to give an opinion as to whether or not the sum mentioned in the Vote is reasonable. When you have entered into a contract with a man, if you want to get out of that contract you must pay the man something for doing that. Whether or not the Government have paid a proper sum is another matter altogether. I could not gather from the right hon. Gentleman what was the actual percentage paid to the various contractors. [HON. MEMBERS; "Ten per cent.!"] If that is so, it is not unreasonable. A contractor having entered into a contract and expecting that he is going to make a profit, if the Government have paid him 10 per cent. I do not think that is a very unreasonable amount. Even supposing he was able to resell his bricks at a higher price than the Government paid, he was entitled to something in respect of the contract.
The statement of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) is true, that where you have a willing buyer determined to buy at any price and at any cost a limited supply of articles, the price of those articles must go up. That is what took place in regard to wages in the building trade. I am not complaining about the men. They had a right to say that they would not work except on certain terms, but I am not sure that they were right in refusing to allow others, ex-soldiers, to enter into the building trade and to work. That is a different matter altogether, and I think they were wrong. I have yet to learn that contractors combine together to refuse to allow some other person who wishes to work to do so. So far as these matters are concerned, there is not very much to say against the Government. I
cannot be supposed to be an out and out supporter of the Government because I say that.
In the treatment of tuberculosis there is a very large increase of nearly 50 per cent, on the original Estimate of £1,210,000. We are told that this is caused owing to the expenditure on treatment having proved to be higher than was anticipated. If so, the Estimate must have been a very bad one, and we should have some reason given for this large increase. An hon. Member said that he thought a great deal of money was wasted on this, and I think that probably that is so. I am not in a position to say that the treatment of tuberculosis carried out by the Ministry of Health is producing any good results. The medical profession, like all other professions who are interested in keeping up their work, no doubt are very anxious that the State should undertake, at the expense of the taxpayer, these experiments by which they should learn their work. That is natural, but I am not sure that it is in the interests of the taxpayer to incur all these expenses unless we are certain that the result is going to be beneficent. We are told that the savings under other heads amount to £1,586,000. The right hon. Gentleman gave no explanation of that. We should be told how these large items are arrived at. The Debate wandered rather widely over the subject before the Committee. Still it has been important, and we ought to have someone present to answer these questions.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: We all agree that one of the most crying needs is to have more employment and more houses and it is somewhat ironical that the £250,000 figuring in this Vote is to give us less employment and fewer houses. We have arrived at an absurd position when the Department which is supposed to exist for the provision of houses asks for money which will defeat the securing of those houses. The Minister has said that it is necessary to cancel the contract. Why is it necessary to cancel the contract? Were more bricks bought than were deemed necessary for the original programme presented by the Government or more than were necessary for the 500,000 houses which the Prime Minister said are essential to make good the needs of the country? Surely is not
the fault of the Supplementary Estimate to be found in that strange policy which the Government have so unfortunately initiated? Would not it have been far better to spend this £250,000 in providing more houses rather than to scrap houses and to make for unemployment? The Minister has said that business firms have to cancel contracts. They cancel contracts when they do not want to take delivery of goods, but no one suggests that we do not want houses and do not want bricks.
I returned last week from my constituency, which is typical of many others. Since 1919 there have been 3,375 applications for the houses and only 415 have been supplied. A deputation is coming up this week to see the Minister of Health to get leave to build more houses, which will mean more work, and yet we are here voting to compensate contractors because we do not want any bricks. We are living in a fool's paradise. What is true of one district is true of another. The London County Council wanted originally 29,000 houses. Now they have been satisfied with a little more than 7,000. The evidence on all hands is that we want the bricks and that it is folly to spend this large sum of money to get rid of what we want. It is true that they may have been bought at a high price, but surely, without paying a huge sum for compensation, it would be possible to make a re-arrangement of price. It is true that where obligations have been entered into for some time ahead some compensation must be paid, but if the right hon. Gentleman were controlling his own business and did want something—he wants the bricks—he would not pay £250,000 for nothing. He told us that a great many of the bricks have not yet been made. The greatest charge in the manufacture of bricks is for coal and labour. Surely, since the price of coal has come down and the price of labour has come down, it would have been possible to enter into negotiations with these contractors and to say: "We will take your bricks, because houses are still needed, but in view of the fall in wages and in the price of coal, you will meet us in this case of national emergency."
I believe that in the case of other trades that has been done. Contracts have been revised owing to the extraordinary
alteration of the position. Where former contracts have not been entered into, subsidiary to the main contract, and this would be the case in reference to most of the bricks, there would have been no difficulty whatever in reducing the amount and coming to some reasonable arrangement. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) supports the economics of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), but, surely, they were based on a fallacy. The hon. Member suggests that the original programme of the Government was wrong, because they were making an unlimited market for a limited supply. Has he forgotten that when these contracts were made the business world was taking 90 per cent. of building material, and labour and housing was only taking 10 per cent. Surely, the price was fixed by the major demand. Surely, the 10 per cent. for building and labour, which went on the building of houses, could not fix the price for the other 90 per cent. which was used in ordinary industries for the erection of factories, motor garages, and so forth. Manufacturers, anxious to get rid of Excess Profits Duty, were enlarging factories, warehouses, and workshops, and were putting up the price of building materials and of labour.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures. It is a revelation to me that 90 per cent. of the building was being done for purposes outside of houses.

Mr. THOMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to answers given to questions put to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour, for 1920, he will find that the amount of labour employed on houses was little more than 10 per cent. and that the building materials required and used, as shown by the Returns given, bear about the same proportion. I admit that the whole theory, from my point of view, depends on a percentage, but I thought that it was generally admitted that the great majority of the building material, steel, iron, bricks, mortar, and cement, and also labour, was in the earlier stages, in 1919 and 1920, devoted to industrial concerns. That was the case in my particular district, and it is the experience of other Members of the House, and these points should be borne in mind when
criticising the Government for taking exceptional measures to meet an emergency period. When we have this shortage of work and of houses we should not scrap contracts and pay £250,000 not to have delivery of material which we require urgently at the present time.
I do hope that the Minister will even yet think better of this policy which he has initiated of curtailing these houses, which he was prepared to have built, realising the tremendous need which exists for these houses and the fall in prices which has taken place and which is not confined to Government Departments. It is suggested that because the right hon. Gentleman has gone to the Ministry of Health the prices of building have fallen. His going there happened to coincide with the general fall in prices. Was it because he has become Minister that the price of steel has fallen from 50 per cent, to 75 per cent., and the prices of wool, leather, and all world commodities have fallen? It was not because the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Health, and it was not because of this change of polity on the part of the Government that the prices of labour and building material have fallen. This fall has happened to coincide with a world-fall in the prices of food, clothing, and everything else. Now that prices have come down surely the right hon. Gentleman should look with more sympathy on the needs of the country for more houses, so that this 20,000,000 bricks which he has in stock and wishes to get rid of shall be put to a good purpose in providing these homes for heroes of which we heard so much a few years ago, and of which we see so little at the present time.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London takes exception to the large increase in the Estimate for the treatment of tuberculosis, and naturally so. Some of us naturally rejoice that this money is being spent on what we believe is a real economy, because we know that the treatment of tuberculosis is yet in its infancy, and, from the evidence which is available, those of us who have been attempting to deal with the problem in industrial areas believe that for every pound spent now on the treatment of tuberculosis in its earlystages there will be a saving from £8 to £3 in later years. Valuable work
is being done. I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to go on, so that in this way real economy may be achieved and that the unemployment, disease and ill-health which follow tuberculosis if left unattended may not fall upon us in the future. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the local authorities and will see that the experiences of various towns are not lost sight of, because, unfortunately, we are but in the initial stages of the treatment of this disease, and it is therefore all the more necessary that the experiences of local authorities in dealing with this question should be collected and statistics compiled, in order to see how the money would be best spent. Experience so far, goes to show that it is far better spent in the treatment of the early stages, rather than in building up sanatoria and large establishments, and spending it on bricks and mortar on a huge scale. It is better to deal with the disease in its earlier stages, by domiciliary and dispensary treatment, following that up by a sympathetic and systematic after-care policy. In that way much might be done to wipe out this white scourge. I hope, when framing the Estimates next year, the Minister will make liberal provision in this respect and achieve a real economy by measures of prevention against this scourge. I wish to ask him how it is that the grant for maternity and child welfare centres in Wales shows a much bigger increase than that for England. I do not grudge to our Welsh friends what they have got, but I begin to wonder whether England is not coming off second best.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a little wide now. It would be better to get nearer the actual question before the Committee.

Mr. T. THOMSON: My point is that there is an increase of nearly 100 per cent. in the amount of money devoted to maternity and child welfare work in Wales, and I am anxious to know whether the same liberal consideration has been given to local authorities in England in administering this most excellent work. The Minister has referred to the coal stoppage, but the coal stoppage was general, and unemployment has been general, and I hope the excellent work of local authorities in England is not to receive less sympathetic or favourable
consideration than has been extended to the local authorities in Wales. I am satisfied it is a work that should be encouraged, and the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having had the courage to withdraw the unfortunate Circular sent out soon after he took office, curtailing considerably the activities of local authorities in this respect.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am glad we have once more the privilege of the presence in the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. During his absence one or two very important questions were asked, of which I have no doubt the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) has taken note. Nearly the whole of this discussion has been directed to the question of housing. With the exception of one or two sentences, nothing has been said about the treatment of tuberculosis. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment—if I am not misinterpreting him—when he says that he doubts whether for the vast sums of money which we are spending on the treatment of tuberculosis we are getting full value. I very much doubt myself whether we get anything like full value, and this is a matter which we should look into, because the increases now being asked for are very heavy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is asking in this Supplementary Estimate for an increase equal to 42 per cent. of the whole original Estimate for the treatment of tuberculosis, and he is also asking as a Supplementary Estimate for no less than 12 per cent, of the original Estimate for maternity and child welfare administration in Wales alone. I expect the reply of the right hon. Gentleman will be that this is merely keeping a bargain with the local authorities. No doubt during recent years great pressure has-been brought to bear on local authorities to act, very often in a direction which they did not consider the best or most expedient for dealing with this particular question. But these increases are all the more curious in view of Circular No. 182 which was issued by the former Minister of Health now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. In regard to the treatment of tuberculosis, in that Circular he said:
Cases where schemes have been approved but work not commenced should generally be postponed.
He also asks for a reconsideration of the present schemes of dealing with this grave scourge, and as regards maternity treatment and child welfare, he said:
Every effort should be made to reduce the cost of maintaining the existing centres.
In spite of that Circular, we have these very large increases, and although my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) welcomes them, we have to remember that not only are they large increases on last year, but that last year's Estimates were very large increases on those of the year before. In 1920–1, £754,000 was spent on the treatment of tuberculosis and £800,000 on the maternity side, which is to say that in the treatment of tuberculosis the cost in one year was doubled, or more than doubled. It is quite clear there has been a very great expansion in the expenditure on these particular services. I do not in the least grudge expenditure of this kind, nor, I am sure, does anybody here, but we have to make up our minds as to whether or not it is wise expenditure. In April last year, the Insurance Committees gave up their work in connection with sanatorium benefit, and a great many of the Committees issued reports of their experiences of the previous 8¾ years during which they had administered that benefit. Nearly all these, reports showed that the results of sanatorium treatment were extremely disappointing. Even in the case of the non-insured, the better class, this was so, and the death rate at Midhurst was enormously high. The Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health said:
The sanatorium, as it has often been worked, has not yielded its full value, and in some instances has, without doubt, in this and other countries, been a failure.
I am merely speaking as a layman, from figures, but there are hon. Members present who are technical experts on this question, and who will be able to give their opinion. There is no doubt, however, that according to statistics, the death rate from tuberculosis fell most rapidly in the years before institutional treatment began. In 1912 sanatorium benefit began. In 1913 it was getting into full swing, and in 1914, when it was in complete working order, there was an increase in the death rate from tuberculosis, and from 1914 until 1919 the death rate went up steadily. If you take the
period of the War, leaving out the male population altogether, you will find that during the War there was a continuous increase in the female death rate from tuberculosis until, in 1918, it was higher than it had been during any year since 1901. For women I find that the lowest death rate on record was in 1913 before any of this treatment commenced. Then we only spent £117,000 upon it.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is referring to the years up to 1918.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, up to 1918. We find that the highest death rate recorded in this century was in 1918, when we spent five times the amount which we spent in 1913. I am not attacking this expenditure on tuberculosis. I merely mention these facts which seem to prove to me that under the present system of spending that money we are not getting full value for it. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into the whole question of the present system of expenditure in this direction. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised another point. In the Geddes Report the Committee recommend the total abolition of the Welsh Board of Health, but we find here there is an enormous increase in the amount required for maternity schemes in connection with that Board. The other Boards are not asking anything at all additional for the particular item which, in the case of the Welsh Board, shows such an increase. The Geddes Committee point out that it would be perfectly easy to transfer the functions of the Welsh Board to the Ministry in London, and that to do so would effect a saving of £40,000 a year. In the present state of our finances, my right hon. Friend should very seriously consider whether he cannot save this substantial sum in administration. I only heard this morning that the Chairman of the Welsh Board, whose agreement is expiring in a day or two, has had that agreement renewed until 1926 Considering that an important Committee has given the opinion that the Welsh Board should be abolished, it is not right that before this House has had an opportunity of saying whether they agree with the Committee or not, the Chairman of this very body should have an extension of his agreement until 1926. [HON. MEMBBES: "When was that done?"] I am told it
was done a day or two ago, and the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe it is going to appear in the papers to-morrow. Those are all the points I wish to make, and I hope on the most important question of tuberculosis treatment, the right hon. Gentleman will look into the facts carefully and see whether we cannot secure full value for the large sums we are being asked to expend.

6.0 P.M.

Dr. ADDISON: The Supplementary Estimate of my right hon. Friend has called forth some very interesting observations, not the least of which are those of the hon. Member who just sat down. I agree with him and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—and I said so often when I occupied the post of my right hon. Friend the Minister—that we do not get the value of our expenditure on tuberculosis, nor do I think we ever shall until the present system is supplemented by a more considerate after-care scheme of treatment and observation. On that I would like to ask my right hon. Friend a question. He is well aware that when I occupied his position certain arrangements were in contemplation with regard to the training of patients in the post-sanatorium period, or, at any rate, towards the end of their stay in the sanatorium. Does the Supplementary Estimate, here presented, contain any provision for training men towards the end of their stay in sanatorium? As a matter of fact, what happens is, that only too often the men come away from the sanatoria and get back to the adverse home conditions and are quite unable to enter the labour market, with the distressing competition that falls upon them, and sooner or later they go down again. That is why it is useless to give additional sums of money for the treatment of tuberculosis and at the same time cut down the money for dealing with slums. It is simply a contradiction in terms. It is no doubt a fact that a large proportion of the unfortunate people who go from the sanatoria, if they go back without any further training for an alternative occupation to their previous ways, in some crowded street—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I am wondering how far a
general discussion on the treatment of tuberculosis would be in order at this stage. This I understand to be a Supplementary Estimate arising from grants to local authorities. That is a policy, and that has been settled. It is now only a question as to whether these grants should be given. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the grants to the local authorities he would be in order on this Supplementary Estimate, but I do not think it would be in order now to discuss the general policy which the House has decided.

Dr. ADDISON: I would point out, with great respect, that the details of the Supplementary Estimate contain these words:
Special grants towards the cost of schemes undertaken by local authorities.
The schemes to which I have been referring up to the present are exclusively undertaken by local authorities, and it goes on to say:
With the approval of the Minister for the treatment of tuberculosis generally.
The point I am making is that an approved scheme should contain within it arrangements for after care and treatment, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional £514,000 asked for does apply to such schemes. I wish him to bring out to what extent this system of after care has been adopted and to what extent it is represented in this Estimate. With regard to my second observation, it referred to the £250,000 compensation to contractors. That compensation, of course, arises out of the provision of housing, and my point was that it is no policy to spend large additional sums on the treatment of tuberculosis on the one hand if, on the other hand, you cease to seek to improve the homes in which the people live. However, I know as a matter of fact that the policy of the Ministry is, as far as they can, to proceed with these after-care schemes, and I am glad to see, notwithstanding recent animadversion in a very wide section of the Press, that even the Geddes Committee blesses the health scheme and does not seek to Curtail it.
I come, however, in the main, to the last two portions of this Vote, and in connection with Item F4, "Purchase of Housing Materials (Re-vote)," I would have been tempted, had he been in his
place, to make more observations than I shall on the remarks of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). If his superior air were only equalled by his information, it would be very useful to the Committee, but I believe that every statement he made was inaccurate. He made, if I remember right, three statements—and they related to the policy which is here dealt with—first, that I had originated the purchase of materials, and that that had landed the House of Commans in having to vote £800,000. When I challenged the hon. Member for Mossley, who I am glad to see has now returned to his place, he hesitated a little before replying, and perhaps, to warn him not to make definite statements again before he has ascertained the facts, I may tell him something about this Vote, and why it is that the Committee comes to have to vote this sum of money. I do not agree with the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Myers) that the conditions after the War were such that the same methods could have been applied to building materials as were applied to the provision of materials for munitions, because only the Government wanted munitions, but a great many other people wanted building materials, and therefore it could not have been possible for one set of men to know all that was required; and here I come to the hon. Member for Mossley. He said that the Minister of Health, going into the market to make these contracts, immediately forced up prices. In the first place, the Minister of Health did not go into the market. The purchases were not made by the Minister of Health, but by the Minister of Munitions. That is the first point on which he is wrong, but the main point is that the bulk of the materials at this time, when prices were rising, were used and were required for commercial and industrial buildings other than houses. I do not know whether it was as much as 90 per cent., but at all events it was by far the greater proportion, and they absorbed by far the greater part both of the materials and of the labour in the whole of 1919 and 1920, so that the hon. Member's statement that we produced the corner is grotesque and inaccurate.
I may say that the origin of this Vote—and I think it is as well that the Committee should know it—was that this matter was considered during the War,
and a scheme was produced based upon what would certainly happen after the War was over, namely, that there would be a great scarcity of materials, especially bricks, and that, therefore, the right thing to do was to encourage their production locally. A scheme was worked out for encouraging their production locally, and in December, 1918, or January, 1919, that scheme, which was worked out by people who were in the trade, and who knew it thoroughly, was set on one side by a Committee, and this wholesale purchase of materials by the Ministry of Munitions was substituted. The hon. Member may be interested to know that Sir Eric Geddes was Chairman of that Committee, but, at all events, that particular proposal did not emanate from the Minister of Health, so there again he was wrong. We did our best to carry it out, of course.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understood what I was saying, which was that the policy of the Government did introduce into a short market a customer prepared to buy to practically any extent, and therefore it produced a corner. The mere fact that the greater part of the building material was being taken for commercial building made it easier for the right hon. Gentleman to produce that corner, because it produced the shortage, but the fact that there was in the market a customer who was determined to buy produced the corner, and therefore forced up the prices.

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of what happened. There were a large number of customers in the market. As a matter of fact, the purchases made in 1919 were not very considerable, but there were vast numbers of customers in the market in 1919 and 1920 who were prepared to give 5s. or 10s. per thousand bricks more than anybody else in order to get bricks, and they were very anxious indeed to buy. I quite agree, of course, that a Government Department coming in with a massive order must inevitably have forced up the prices, and that is one of the reasons why I recommended the other scheme. However, we did our best to work the scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health finds himself compelled to come to the Committee to propose this Vote,
having himself done his best to work the scheme, and he knows that I got hold of it and was so dissatisfied with some of it that I tried to get rid of it, and he has followed that process.
The main point of this Vote, however, is this £250,000 compensation to contractors, and it is the policy there embodied that I want once more to say a word or two about, because we now have, happily, some figures. I notice that, although we were told in July, 1921, that not a house less would be built and that the trade was to be employed to its fullest capacity, there were as a matter of fact, in July, 132,000 men unemployed in the building trade, and on the 31st January that figure was 176,000, while on the 10th January it was 168,000. At my own request I have been supplied by the Ministry of Labour regularly with the figures of unemployment in the building industry, and I say that it is this policy largely which has produced the augmentation. There was unemployment before, and we were told that it was because there was a shortage of plasterers and that therefore they could not employ other people. As a matter of fact, in January there were no fewer than 7,422 bricklayers out of work, and the July number was 3,000. Unemployment in the other trades was similarly augmented. As a matter of fact, there were 48,000 skilled men out of work in July, and 75,000 skilled men in this trade out of work on the 31st January.
The Minister of Labour, the other day, was asked what these men were paid, and his reply was that they received £105,000 a week out-of-work pay in various ways. We all know that the men, certainly in the building trade unions—bricklayers and others—are also receiving benefit from their trade unions. Then the unemployed unskilled men are receiving assistance from the guardians to supplement what they are getting from the Unemployment Fund. I have made inquiries as to the figures in different districts, and it is certainly a fair statement to make that the average assistance which these men are receiving is from 10s. to 15s. a week each from other sources—the unions or the guardians—beyond what they get from the Unemployment Fund. That is to say, there is being paid at the present time in respect of unemployment in this trade, out of public moneys or in contributions
from their fellow-workmen, £200,000 a week. That is the lowest computation. There are 40,000 additional men out of work, mainly through the termination of contracts or the non-renewal of contracts by this policy. Instead of calling it 40,000 men, we will call it 25,000—again an under-estimate. We certainly paid in unemployment pay, assistance from the guardians, and otherwise since July to men additionally unemployed in this trade, £750,000 at the very least.
Let us carry this out a little further. Those men on the present scale of relief from the guardians, from the Unemployment Fund and trade unions will absorb at least £2,000,000 during the next 12 months. Entirely apart from promises that have been broken, and the public need for houses, and that sort of thing, taking it simply as a matter of arithmetic, this policy since July has certainly involved an additional payment to unemployed persons of £750,000. It has involved this payment of £250,000 in cancellation of contracts, and we are spending additional money now to unemployed in the building trade, in consequence of this decision, at the rate of £2,000,000 a year. All these are most conservative figures. That is what this policy means in terms of cash. It is not very economical when you come to look at it like that. It is true it does not appear on the Votes of the Minister of Health, and my right hon. Friend is not in the unfortunate position of having to answer for them. It will fall in the general mass of expenditure for which the Minister of Labour will have to be answerable under the Unemployment Act, and upon boards of guardians, trade unions and otherwise. No doubt it disappears from the books of the Ministry of Health, and unthinking people might imagine that it disappears as public expenditure, but it does not. Let us take this a little bit further, because these men at the present time are receiving all this money for doing nothing. The price of house-building has fallen very much. I think the credit is clue neither to myself nor to my right hon. Friend for the change which took place during my time and during his. According to figures supplied by the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that houses can be built now for about £500.

Sir A, MOND: £450.

Dr. ADDISON: I will give my right hon. Friend £50, and call it £500. When these houses were built the cost of borrowing the money, in the main, was about 6½ per cent.

The CHAIRMAN: How does the right hon. Gentleman connect this part of his argument with the items of the Vote?

Dr. ADDISON: My point is that this is an expensive and uneconomic policy. I was going to put the other side of the case to show that this was costlier. The point was that when this money was borrowed it cost 6½ per cent. We are now able to get it at 5½ per cent., so that the loss which the Exchequer will have to bear will be reduced proportionately. A house costing £500 with money borrowed at 5½ per cent, will cost, say, £30 a year, and, adding something for the land, drainage, fencing, and so forth, we will call it £35, or, say, £40—let us be generous. The average rent which the Ministry of Health fixes is about 10s. a week, or £26 a year. We will call it £20 a year. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, the loss on that house, at the present rate at which money can be borrowed, at the outside would be £20 a year. In the building trade you may say it takes two men a year to build a house. At the present time if those two men are kept out of public funds, one way or the other it costs about £120 a year. That means that if you put those two men who are now drawing £120 a year out of public funds on to building houses you could have a house for six years for nothing. That is what it comes to on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures.

Sir F. BANBURY: This will not go on for ever, but the houses will.

Dr. ADDISON: It has certainly gone on since last July. In my view, it would be a wiser policy, and it would certainly be in accordance with our pledges—we put them on one side, as they do not seem to matter—it would, at any rate, be a wiser policy, and a more sensible policy, to allow a reasonable number of these houses to continue to be built, even if they result in a loss of £20 a year, than to pay the two men required to build a house at the rate of £120 a year for doing nothing. It certainly would be better policy in the interest of public health. It would be better policy
even if the whole of the money were spent, not in building new-houses, but in patching old ones, as suggested by my hon. Friend. It would be better public health policy. It would be better in the interests of tuberculosis, and it would certainly be more economic than the payment of £120 a year to two men for doing nothing. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to carry out a policy, which, as a matter of fact, he did not originate, which has resulted in the payment of £1,000,000 to men for doing nothing, and is producing no good in the last 12 months, and which, in view of the public need for houses, and the reduced prices of building, is a policy which is condemned, and I believe myself that if outside indications are anything to go by, it is a policy of which, in the long run, the country will not approve.

Sir A. MOND: The Debate has proceeded for some considerable time, and my right hon. Friend who has just spoken (Dr. Addison) has devoted the major portion of his speech to a calculation which I am afraid has little to do with the Estimate now presented, and on which I have addressed the House. Whether or not it is wise or otherwise to go on building houses, whether or not it is cheaper to pay people unemployment allowances or to subsidise the building industry, are interesting points for discussion perhaps, but nobody in their senses would go on with a brick contract at prices which the local authorities cannot afford to pay. The cancellation of the brick contracts are quite apart from the larger questions involved. I therefore do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend into his calculations—assuming that his figures are accurate Some of the points he has put forward are the very reasons why the present scheme has had to be curtailed, and then we must not forget what the Geddes Committee have reported in connection with this matter. My right hon. Friend does not do himself justice in this matter, and he does me less justice still when he implies that action of mine is responsible—

Dr. ADDISON: No, I did not say that I said I did not wish to claim credit.

Sir A. MOND: Criticisms on the building programme which my right hon.
Friend instituted, and which seemed to be supported by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Thomson) are very well, but, after all, no economic platitude can do away with the facts. I trust that in due course we shall get this matter put on a satisfactory basis; that we shall get houses back again to an economic level. What, in some of these matters, we require, is firmness as purchasers against unscrupulous profiteers. When the building industry once more becomes normal and houses are put up at economic rents which people can afford to pay, then, in the long run, everybody will be rather better off.
Several points have been put to me by the hon. Member opposite. We have not been able to find any money for the purposes he mentioned in the money at our disposal. It is quite probable that all the money spent on sanatoria has not been spent to the best advantage, but I want to point out that in criticism of that sort, made, not unnaturally, as to the increase of both Supplementary and original Estimate, that a very much higher percentage has been brought about by the large increase in the cost of material and food than in any real or great development of the services. In regard to this treatment, I do not think anybody, perhaps, considers that it is very much more than a sort of intermediate method of treatment until medical science really discovers a cure. But important work is being done. Still, until medical science can be more sure, I imagine we shall have to go on and get what results we can by sanatoria treatment. I hope the after-care treatment will develop. I would like to say here that that work is carried on to a large extent by voluntary effort due to the present financial stringency. I hope we shall not always be so badly off.
There appear to have been many suspicions of our action in paying compensation for the cancellation of the brick contracts. It may be that hon. Members are labouring under a misapprehension and think that no attempt has been made to see the contractors or to come to any reasonable compromise with them. As a matter of fact, I think I have explained that, not only were we dealing with individuals, but in most cases we were dealing with large federations of building trade manufacturers in the north of England whose operations covered large areas. Most of the bar-
gains were made on a flat rate with a representative of the association concerned. My hon. Friends of the Labour party may some day have to form a Labour Ministry which, I have no doubt, will involve filling the post which I now occupy. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will get there all right, do not worry!"] Doubtless they will do well, but I imagine they will find themselves up against the difficulties that we are up against. Take the case of the brick contract for 100,000,000 bricks at 75s. How would they go about a matter of that kind? They could not tell the man that they would not now take the bricks off his hands and ask him kindly to cancel the contract. If they had been fortunate enough to induce the person concerned to cancel the contract without consideration, they would have been more fortunate than I have been. As a matter of fact, the gentleman had a right to go into the Court of law and to insist upon my taking the bricks at 75s., or paying the difference between what he could sell the bricks at and the contract price. That is the legal position. I can hardly imagine the Labour Ministry repudiating their contracts. I have devoted a considerable amount of time personally and what persuasion I may have to the adjustment of this matter, and I consider we are being met in a fair and generous way. My hon. Friend opposite does not suggest—I do not believe he does—that the keeping of an honourable bargain is nothing! The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Myers) referred to his volume of profiteering reports. One of those reports points out—I have it here—the not unreasonable profits made by both manufacturers and retailers in view of the amount of capital involved. Then it deals with labour, and, taking the average wage of the labourer before the War at 24s. per week, it points out that he latterly received 67s., which, of course, is approximately 180 per cent, increase. I am not responsible for bricks going up in price. Then there is the fuel. The wages of the colliers during past years have been a very large factor in this matter. I am not complaining about these advances in the remuneration of labour, but these things should not be forgotten in our criticism. No further contracts have been made during 1921 and 1922 and no further contracts are going to be made. If hon. Members look
at the stocks of bricks in some of these places, I am sure they will not be at all anxious to start brickyards. I do not think it is relevant for hon. Members to say that we should benefit by going on building more houses under these circumstances, and we do not want to pay a higher price for bricks. The local authorities have all been saying that they could buy bricks cheaper than Government Departments, and in the past we have had to say to them, "You must take your material from a really first-class Government Department; we have bought the bricks and you must use them." That policy could not go on, and it is all very well to be wise after the event.
With regard to the question put to me about the Welsh Board of Health, obviously the Estimate was not as well founded as the one that preceded it, and the local authorities seem to have underestimated what they required. I do not, however, think that this is the occasion for dealing with the point raised about the future of this Department, and it ought to be dealt with when the ordinary Estimates are introduced, because this Estimate is one purely of an exceptional character. I think I have now covered most of the points which have been raised, and as there will be another occasion on which my sins and iniquities can be discussed with much greater freedom than is permitted on Supplementary Estimates, I ask the Committee to pass this Estimate now and reserve any further discussion for the occasion when the Estimates will be introduced later on, and when a much larger discussion can take place.

Dr. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman is always interesting on the question of prices, but how he can justify their reduction on some occasions and their increase on other occasions I cannot understand. I want to emphasise the fact that in a sense this Estimate presents both the bane and the antidote. The policy adopted shows that there has been a stoppage of the housing scheme, which means an increase of tuberculosis and its consequences, and that is what I wish to rub in. I know we cannot generalise on the subject of tuberculosis, or upon any other disease, but if there is one feature more prominent than another in tuberculosis, it is the housing conditions of this country. One hon. Member referred to
the fact that the number of deaths from tuberculosis had increased during the War, although institutional treatment had been applied. The treatment had nothing to do with that result, which was more due to the fact that the slums of the country had not been properly attended to during the War and there had been a cessation of the house building. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has provided half a million for the hospitals of the country, but he is taking it away again by taxing scientific instruments.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been trembling on the verge of what is in order for some time, but now he has gone completely over the verge.

Dr. MURRAY: I only wish to emphasize that in my opinion nothing tends more to the prevention of the spread of this disease than the provision of suitable and well-ventilated houses.

The CHAIRMAN: The housing policy is dealt with in the original Estimate, and there is nothing in this Estimate upon which that subject can be raised.

Dr. MURRAY: I only wish to emphasise that this policy of the Government, like any other policy they have adopted, is inconsistent, and the stoppage of house-building will produce more tuberculosis, and then you will be asked to vote further money in order to counteract the results of your own folly.

Mr. HASLAM: I am sure that few hon. Members of this Committee wish to oppose the expenditure of this money which is necessary as a curative agency. I regret, however, that there is no mention of any expenditure on preventive agencies. I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that prevention in these matters is better than cure, and money might have been saved in the end if it had been spent upon the prevention of tuberculosis. I desire to impress upon the Minister of Health and his permanent officials the desirability of paying the closest attention to promoting the health and resisting power of the community against contamination by the adoption of prophylactic measures and a better system of nutrition. If these methods had been pressed forward much of the time and money spent upon curative agencies would have been unneces-
sary. I have in my hand a memorial sent to the previous Minister of Health drawn up at the meeting held in one of the Committee Rooms of this House on 11th December, 1919, in connection with the Society known as the Bread and Food Reform League. The memorial is signed by 85 Members of Parliament, including all the members of the medical profession who are members of this House, and it is endorsed by about 35 of the leading medical authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure what the argument is, but I think the hon. Gentleman is advocating some kind of sanitary measures for which there is no provision in this Estimate. If that is so I am afraid he will have to develop that argument upon some other occasion.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HASLAM: I was only trying to point out that a great deal of saving could have been made in this Supplementary Estimate if the young people of this country had had proper nutrition. I wanted to draw particular attention to the fact that in the bread and flour now being made the germ essential to health is excluded.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is quite clear that is a matter of policy affecting the Ministry of Health generally. No doubt it would be a very proper subject to discuss on the Vote on Account, but I do not think it can be brought into this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. HASLAM: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I hope I may have an opportunity when the Vote of the Ministry of Health comes on of dealing with this particular subject, which is one of the most important things we have to consider in connection with the health of the people.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: We have had much advice given to us from the other side, notably the irritating and offensive lecture from the Simon Pure of the House, the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who simply squirms in his place when any reply is made to him and leaves the House. The Minister of Health has been telling us that if the Labour party were in power we might bring in a Bill to cancel this Vote. If the Labour party were in power to-morrow they could not produce more legislation in three years and
cancel it than the present Government. There are mining, housing, agriculture, to mention only three that come to mind, so that we should be in good company if we did that. We are asked to pass a Vote to compensate somebody for work which has not been done, and we say, on this side, that work that ought to be done ought to be going on to-day when there is a crying need for it. There are local authorities to-day begging for permission to build houses. I have got one urban district in my own Division. We have been begging for a long time, but sanction is still withheld. There was a new colliery started there at the beginning of the War, and during the War that colliery developed, but there was no house building and, as a result, the colliery has not half the houses it ought to have. In another part of that district, in 1913, an inquiry was held, and the local authority were advised to build then. They have not been allowed to do that up to the present. If what the Government told us when they cancelled their housing programme was true, there would be no necessity for this Vote at all. Unfortunately, it was not true, and I think they must have known it at that time. They told us they were cancelling it because no further houses could be built until the end of 1922, as building labour would be wholly employed up to that time. Why then pay money over to some building contractors for work they could not do, because of the labour market? Unfortunately, that is not true, and I venture to say there will be 200,000 men unemployed in the building trade to-day because of housing schemes which are being finished from day to day. The number of unemployed is being added to constantly because of that.
This question of tuberculosis touches the housing question very closely. There are some diseases that are practically unknown to-day, not, I think, owing to the skill of the medical profession—although we do not want to belittle that at all—but because of the better sanitation of the country. I refer to certain fevers, smallpox, and so on, and I am going to say that if there were better housing, better living conditions, if the mothers and the babies and the small children were given a better chance to live than they are at present, then this scourge of tuberculosis would go out of this country
the same as the other diseases I have referred to. I think it is patent to everybody that this is a disease we ought to be ashamed to see existing in our midst to the extent it does. Housing is a very important factor. The subject I wish to speak about most particularly is maternity and welfare. I am glad the Minister of Health has not given a reply to the question of whether, he will dispense with the Welsh Board of Health. There will be something to be said on that point, and I hope he will take time before he makes his decision. I wish to ask a few questions in regard to "Maternity—Grants to Local Authorities." I do not know who is meant by "local authorities." We generally consider urban, rural, and county councils as local authorities. Have the county councils any power under this scheme at all, and will they under a welfare scheme set up by them in any part of the country administer this Order1? If so, we should want to know what the composition of those committees is, and whether there is a predominance of people on those committees who have been popularly elected, because we are opposed to public money being spent by people not responsible to the community. Then there is the question of "voluntary agencies." I do not know what is meant by that term. Does the Government hand over public money to people responsible to nobody at all? When the Housing Act of 1920 was on the Government did the same thing. In opposition to a large body of opinion in this House they then agreed to hand over public money to certain irresponsible people, utility societies, good in their way I dare say, but not responsible to the ratepayers of the country. They decided to hand over money to private individuals, to speculative builders, and so on, but the sum was limited, and the time for which it was to be paid was also limited. We find the very same thing here. I take it that "voluntary agencies" means that public money is handed over to people not responsible to any local authority or any body of ratepayers in this country. If that is so, we condemn that principle.
There is another point, namely, the £23,000 increase. The question was asked why the increase was greater in Wales than elsewhere. I know something about that, and I think I can give a reply. It is the extreme poverty of the people that has caused this amount to go up as it
has. The wages of those who are working are low enough to satisfy even the hon. Member for Mossley, and the hon. Member for one of the Cardiff seats who has never ceased to prate about the wages of the workers since he came into the House. If they can work a full week they may hope to earn about 36s. Is there any wonder there is this increase in the Estimate? There are large numbers unemployed. I have never known anything like it in my life, and people who have never before thought of going to the Guardians, and would have resented any suggestion that they should go, have been compelled by sheer force of circumstances to go there. I regret the necessity for people taking advantage of this. We are very little further on than we were in 1795, when there was a scale of poor relief given in addition to wages to bring them up to a certain figure. There are people giving a week's honest service to-day—

The CHAIRMAN: This seems a very long way from the particular Vote before the Committee.

Mr. EDWARDS: It was just an illustration, but perhaps a long one. I was lamenting the fact that it was necessary for people to apply for poor relief who are able and willing to work. We are undermining that independent proud spirit we like so much. I would like to know how these Estimates are obtained. What steps are taken to secure them? Are local authorities applied to? I cannot imagine the Minister of Health applying to a voluntary society for an estimate, but I do not know how he proceeds. Is it on the basis of some past period, or what is the idea? Then there is another point. I understand the present arrangement for providing milk for mothers and babies is to come to an end, or it is proposed it should come to an end, on the 31st March. I should like to know what is to happen after that. I think it would be one of the greatest misfortunes if that scheme ends then. At least the babies of the country ought to be given a chance. I do not know where the Minister of Health gets his information from; he cannot have first-hand information because he would not claim to have any personal knowledge of how the workers and the poor live. I do not put that offensively at all, because
that does not help any case, and I keep as far away from it as I can. But it is stated here:
The Minister is satisfied, as a result of experience of the administration of this service, that many local authorities have incurred expenditure very greatly exceeding what is either necessary or desirable for the purpose in view.
Where does that information come from? Surely the best people to know are the local authorities, the local people who deal with it. Surely they know much more than any Government office in London what is necessary. They live among the people, and know what their necessities are. Then I read further on:
It appears to him that with a proper system of administration the necessities of those whom the service was designed to affect could be met by expenditure very considerably less than that now being incurred.
I ask again where docs this information come from. The people on the spot ought to know best.

Sir A. MOND: The people on the spot very often send me that information.

Mr. J. JONES: Who are the people on the spot?

Sir A. MOND: Very often the local authorities.

Mr. JONES: The Charity Organisation Society.

Mr. EDWARDS: The people on the spot are in a better position to know than anybody in a Government office in London. I say that not with a view to opposing this Vote at all. We believe that the Vote for Maternity and Child Welfare is one which might with advantage be increased, and as far as that particular Vote is concerned we support it. I think we ought to consider more favourably in what way we can give the mothers and children a chance. If we do that we should get a better nation than we have to-day, and would not be what was talked so much about during the War, a C3 nation. I think very much could be done, and I think it is due to them to do it.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), in discussing this question to-night, has had his usual tilt at the wicked worker. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I have no desire to follow him. There are some
things he cannot explain, no matter how much he may criticise labour, among others, the fact that the men who build all the fine houses live in slums themselves, and are the people who are affected with tuberculosis. The Minister for Health says that in 1914 the wages of building trade labourers were 24s. per week. It cannot be high wages, then, that is the cause of tuberculosis, because anyone who took even a casual interest in the subject must have known that we had bad housing then and we had tuberculosis then. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), the hon. Member for Mossley, and the Minister of Health, are agreed on essentials up to a certain point. The great mass of workers were living in houses little better than pig styes. You will see one of them in the Olympia Housing Exhibition if you care to take a walk across there on Wednesday. Houses were wanted, and you cannot build houses without materials; we are all agreed upon that. The hon. Member for Mossley, the Minister of Health, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley all agreed that we wanted houses and the material was there, but because there was a demand that houses should be built for the people, those who owned that material created rings, prices went up, and we could not build the houses. The three of you are agreed up to that point. [Interruption.] I wish my friends would leave me alone, as well as my opponents. Housing had to be stopped for a period because of the cost of materials. This is where we part company. I do not hope to convert you over there; I have told you that over and over again; we have different ideals in life. [A laugh.] Yes, different ideals, thank God! Your ideal is to buy and sell and to make profits even out of bad houses. I may be uneducated, I may not have had university opportunities, I may be "one of those Labour men," but if to be educated is to hold the opinion that trusts and those who create rings and keep us from getting good housing—if that is the result of education, then Heaven prevent me from being educated, I prefer to remain uncultured. The Labour party's position—and, as I said, we do not hope to convert the Government: the people outside will see into that quick enough—is that it was the duty of the Government to step in and prevent any individual or corporation, or even workman, from keeping the people
from getting good houses. That was the argument of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. His position was that it was the duty of the Government to prevent rings being formed, or, if they were formed, to break them up.

Sir A. MOND: Would the hon. Member agree to conscripting building labour cheap?

Mr. ROBERTSON: Labour has always been conscripted at the cost of living. [Interruption.] Well, I do not want to follow up the argument, because I cannot spend my time trying to convert this House. As I have said already, labour generally got no more out of the War than the cost of living. However, I will have an opportunity to reply to this later on. What we blame the Government for is that they had more consideration for the profiteer, and for the men who formed rings and trusts to hold up building materials, than for the men and women who were suffering from tuberculosis in the slums of this country. That is our charge against the Government.
I am a layman, and I do not know anything about it from the medical standpoint, but at least I have got sufficient education to be able to read, and I have read medical testimony, and the general testimony is that, no matter what you do, you will never cope with tuberculosis until you deal with the houses. That is the reason why we pay so much attention to houses in preference to elaborate buildings that are simply a monument to the neglect, ignorance and selfishness of the people of this country in not providing good houses, It is a form of cruelty, and the worst kind of cruelty, to take men and women out of the slums and put them into a sanatorium, and then, when they are a certain way on the road to health, bring them back in the slums again. We recognise that the housing problem in this country has been a difficult problem. I do not care if the Labour party had been in power—it would have been a difficult problem; but we say that no corporation or any trust would have been allowed to stand in the way of a sound housing policy that would give houses to the people before dividends were given to trusts and corporations holding up building material.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has
referred to one or two points which show some misconception of the problem, though he voices opinions with which most of us who have had practical experience of dealing with health or housing can entirely agree. We do not agree with his expression of his views, because that has been full of inaccuracies; but with the spirit which lies behind it we sympathise wholly. Whichever coalition of parties has been in power, they have been consistently anxious, for the last 14 years, to take measures for the reduction of tuberculosis and improving the housing of the people. The hon. Member referred to medical opinion, and perhaps I have a right to speak on that subject, having been for 15 years a county medical officer of health. In that capacity, and quite apart from politics, I can say that I entirely agree with his general opinion, which is the opinion on both sides, that in order to deal with tuberculosis on a large scale, you must hope for and aim at an improvement in the housing of the people. Not that that is the only thing, or that by itself it is of such great importance, but it is perhaps the most useful thing you can drive at, it is the centre of a whole set of social circumstances, which, tackled as a whole, will help to reduce tuberculosis. Where I part company with him is in this: that he and his friends take the line that it is the duty of the Government to provide the houses, and that the people should sit down and receive those houses. He takes that line because he is a Socialist, and that is the opinion of the Socialist party. That is the tenor of his remarks, and I do not think I have misinterpreted him—that the Government have got to provide the houses and that the working classes have got to receive them.

Mr. ROBERTSON: That is the policy on which your party was returned to power in 1918.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: One of the articles of that policy was to assist in the providing of houses. They were never returned—

The CHAIRMAN: This is getting a very long way from this very limited Supplementary Estimate with regard to the treatment of tuberculosis and the cancellation of contracts.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I quite agree; I was going too much into detail. But with regard to this particular question, the cancelling of contracts and diminishing the cost of houses, what the Socialist party always refuses to recognise is that housing is only useful in so far as the tenants and occupiers of the houses are prepared to do the best with them themselves. There is no reason why housing, like other essential matters—like food—should not to a large extent be provided at their own expense with assistance from the Government. That was what the Government set out to do. They recognised that they could not expect tenants to pay the full economic cost of these houses, and were prepared to give a very large contribution to meet the exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member says the Government were defeated by the formation of rings and trusts which they could have stopped.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I said the Minister of Health said so.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Among the many difficulties we have had to deal with in carrying out this policy on the London County Council was the formation of rings and trusts—undoubtedly. But in the building of houses you have to consider the cost of labour, materials, and overhead charges, and in materials you have also got to consider mainly the question of labour. Take it all in all, we make out that something between 80 and 90 per cent, of the cost of these houses is due to labour in one form or another, whether in materials or in transport, or in actual building.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if it is not true that during the period since the Armistice there have been continual reductions in wages—

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of fact—whether it is so or not. It cannot be a point of Order.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The universal experience is that 80 to 90 per cent, of the cost of building, whether low or high, has been due to labour.

Mr. J. JONES: No.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The experience of the London County Council has been that high costs, medium costs,
or low costs have been mainly due to the high cost of labour. I do not say that labour has been always to blame, but the Socialist party should recognise this fact quite clearly and definitely, that not only has that been the case, but we have had incessant obstacles placed in our way by the Labour party themselves in opposing the full and free use of labour. What was to be done with such an increase as there was as the result of rings and combines in this tremendously high cost of production, and when added to this there was the high cost of labour? The position was impossible. The houses on the Roehampton Estate cost £1,700, involving an indebtedness to the estate of no less than £98 per year. The only way of bringing everyone back to their senses was to have a dead cut. Whether you put the blame on the manufacturer or on the contractor the only way was to get them all to come down by a sudden cut. That was felt to be the only way to bring costs down, and the result was a tremendous drop, because not only contractors and manufacturers, but labour also recognised that they could no longer expect a permanent subsidy from the Government. We who are as keen on housing as Members on the Labour Benches agreed that it was essential to have an absolute cut and get down to dead rock before deciding on another policy.

Mr. MILLS: I have always listened with great interest to the hon. Member who has just spoken, because he is always fair in his contributions to our discussions and adds to the value of our Debates. He mentioned the case of Roehampton. Will he, in totalling up the cost of that costly experiment, not agree with me that land which was rated at £950 was bought for £120,000 by the London County Council before they started to build? That was one of the items of the Roehampton building scheme, and when you talk about apportioning the whole blame to Labour, I suggest it is a distortion of facts. I am quite prepared to admit that the cost of labour was higher than in pre-War times and that working hours were shorter, but no man who really has at heart the betterment of the condition of the working classes and a higher standard of educational development can consistently appeal for an extension of working
hours, but would rather agree with the men in their demand for a shorter working week.
The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) went further, and proved out of a Report compiled by one of the poorest Members in the House, a man exempt from taxation because of his poverty, the existence of a state of profiteering which should have been a revelation to hon. Members. In connection with the Woolwich Pumping Station of the London County Council we had complete evidence of the existence of rings and combines, for members of this particular ring, which operated in every corner of Great Britain, sent in tenders all exactly of the same amount for this job, the figure being £27,072. That led to questions being put in this House from the Labour Benches, and, as a result, a profiteering tribunal was set up to deal with that particular section of building costs. My hon. Friend pointed out that, as compared with pre-War costs, sand went up 114 per cent., lime 262 per cent., cement 204 per cent., kitchen ranges 320 per cent., rain water pipes 317 per cent., sinks 388 per cent., drain pipes 261 per cent., tiles 275 per cent., and York stone 464 per cent. I could go on with dozens of items of a like character. Does any hon. Member seriously suggest that the cost of labour has risen 464 per cent.? I suggest that that record produced by my hon. Friend constitutes a complete indictment of the building ring, which was deliberately brought together to exploit the community.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will my hon. Friend tell us what was the increase in the cost of labour? Will he take it from me that it amounted to 300 per cent.?

Mr. MILLS: Labour costs have risen in some cases by 160 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: And in some cases by 300 per cent.

Mr. J. JONES: Lawyers and doctors.

Mr. MILLS: I am quite willing to admit that wages in some of the skilled trades have gone up nearly 150 per cent., but they never went up to the extent of the increase in the cost of living. The Committee on Production is my authority for that. That Committee was set up by the Government It reviewed the Board
of Trade statistics as to cost of living, and apportioned the wages three months afterwards. Every trade unionist and every person who has gone forward with a demand for an increased wage knows that the Committee of Production, through the whole period of the war, granted rises in wages three months after the increase in the cost of living revealed by the Board of Trade figures, and I would like it explained how it is that at the present moment wages which followed prices when the War broke out now precede prices in coming down. Wages are coming down, but the cost of living is far higher.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting into a general discussion now.

Mr. MILLS: When one attempts to follow interruptions he is liable to be led into a blind alley. I should like, in dealing with this particular phase of the question, to add that as a justification of the demand of any body of workers, skilled or unskilled, for a reduction of their working hours per week. I submit if nothing has been gained—

The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a general matter. How can it be relevant to this Debate?

Mr. MILLS: I will draw my remarks to a close by stating that in my opinion the curtailment of the housing programme, as revealed by this Estimate and the adding to the burden of taxation of a quarter of a million of money as compensation to men for contracts that were cancelled at a time when thousands of houses within a stone's throw of this building only stand together in rows because they eannot stand separately is a distinct indictment of the people who are prepared to cancel the housing problem. Will anyone in their senses deny that?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in the remarks he has just made-because it would not be in order. But the hon. Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) in his interesting speech referred to the case of the Roehampton housing scheme as a justification of the policy of the Minister of Health in cancelling contracts. The hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Mills) suggested that my hon. and gallant Friend failed to take into account the
cost of the land at Roehampton. I am informed that that land was purchased at about £600 per acre. Eighteen houses were built on an acre and therefore the cost of the land per house worked out at about £30. Hence in this as in many other cases the cost of the land is really a negligible quantity in the building.

Mr. J. JONES: The land we fought for.

Viscount WOLMER: Hon. Members must be well aware of the facts I have quoted. I can give other instances. I know of a case in Hampshire where land was sold at £50 per acre, while the houses cost over £900 to build.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be a matter of fact, but it is hardly relevant to the discussion.

Viscount WOLMER: My figures were challenged by hon. Members, and therefore I proceeded to give others. I do not suppose however many figures I give I shall influence their opinion. Several hon. Members in the course of this Debate have complained of the item of £250,000 for the cancellation of contracts, and it has been suggested that this is money paid for work which has not been done. Do hon. Members of the Labour party really think that that is a fair description of the Estimate?

Mr. G. BARKER: It is true.

Viscount WOLMER: If they think it is a complete or sufficient description of the transaction, all I can say is that they have not really faced the question at issue at all. Do hon. Members imagine that when a contractor makes a contract, all that he does is to sit still and reap his profit? Surely, they must realise that when a contractor makes a contract he at once puts himself in the position of having to incur a great number of expenses. He either has to provide, or to reserve, machinery; he has to purchase raw material; he has to make his preparations; he probably has to make other contracts; he has to engage labour. Then the Government come along and change their policy and say to him, "We would like to get out of this contract with you." The point was put very well by the Minister of Health. There are only two alternatives—either you have to induce the contractor to cancel the contract, or else to pass a special Act of Parliament cancelling it. Hon. Mem-
bers were challenged by the Minister of Health as to which of these two alternatives they would adopt, and the only reply from the Labour benches was that, if they did pass repealing legislation, they would, at any rate, only be following the example of the present Government.
I am not going to defend the policy of the present Government in regard to the various Acts of Parliament which they have repealed. I think that perhaps, on some of these matters, hon. Members above the Gangway and myself would be of very much the same opinion. I would, however, like to point out to them that in this case it is really not a fair retort on their part. It is not a question of repealing a policy, but of repealing a contract by Act of Parliament, and that is an entirely different matter. I do not suppose that even the Labour party would advocate the repeal of a contract by Act of Parliament, because any Government that did that would never be able to get a tender from any firm again. Therefore, I think the Government did perfectly right in attempting to cancel contracts. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Health on having made the best of a bad job. When he came to his Department he was faced with an almost incredible state of affairs. His predecessor had reduced the housing question in this country to an impasse. The cost of housing had been driven up by his muddling policy to such lengths that it was impossible for houses to be built. [HON. MEMRERS: "It was the Government!"] I quite agree that the Government collectively bear a responsibility, but the present Minister did what, in my opinion, was the only thing to do. He made a clean cut, and in the course of doing that he had to cancel contracts. I think the nation has got out of those contracts very cheaply. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy has been to increase and accelerate the fall in the cost of raw material and in the cost of labour; and partly—not, of course, entirely—as a result of his policy, it is now much easier to build houses than it was six months ago? Therefore, if the Labour party go to a Division on this matter, I shall support the Government.

Mr. G. BARKER: The complaint that I have to make against the Government is that they have made no attempt up to the present to answer the case made
by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) for a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member attributed the failure of the Government's housing policy to the failure of the Government to control the prices of building materials; and, to substantiate his statement, he quoted a number of instances where the Ministry of Munitions had controlled the cost of materials, and had been able thereby to reduce the prices of the manufactured articles very considerably. The Minister of Health has made no attempt to answer that case. The only attempt he has made has been by trying to ride off on high wages.

Sir A. MOND: I do not want to interrupt, but I did quote the Report of the Profiteering Committee, which stated that no undue profit had been made on bricks.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: What about the other materials? Are bricks the only constituent part of a house?

Sir A. MOND: They are the most important.

Mr. BARKER: It is no use the Minister trying to ride off on that horse. The cost of building materials in this country is a public scandal. In one of the prominent London daily papers there was a standing headline for weeks, "The Ring Round the House," and it showed the people of this country why houses could not be built on reasonable terms. What happened after the Armistice was signed? The first thing the Government did was to dispossess themselves of every bit of material they had. They put up their factories for sale; they got rid of every bit of timber they possibly could; they got rid of every bit of material they could have used for housing; and then they announced to the country a great housing scheme, involving an expenditure of many millions. What happened then? Those gentlemen who had hold of the building material got together and cornered this material, and ran up the price of houses until it became economically impossible to build them. The Minister of Health, as a Member of the strongest Government this country has ever seen, made no effort to control those profiteers; and why? Because it is well known in the House of Commons and in the country that the Government's own supporters were the very men who were interested in these high prices. It is
useless for the Minister of Health to ride off at a tangent on high wages. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said, the price of the article always goes up before wages go up, and therefore the Minister's argument has no point whatever, because the cost of wages only follows the cost of living.
The right hon. Gentleman asks, what were they to do with those bricks? They could have built houses with them. The charge that the country has against the Government is that they have sacrificed the health of the people of this country on the altar of the profiteer. The condition of this country to-day is a disgrace to any Government. I should like some of the hon. Gentlemen who are supporting the Government to-night to come down into the constituencies and go into the houses and see the wretched conditions under which the people are housed. It is absolutely wicked, and the country is disgusted with the Government, especially as regards housing. The Government cannot win an election in any industrial constituency, largely because of the failure of their housing policy.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting very far away from the subject of the Vote.

Mr. BARKER: I am not the only one who has got outside the ambit of the Vote. I do agree with the Government in one thing, and that is with regard to the sum of money that they are devoting to their Health Department. I was surprised to hear an hon. Member express approval of the Government's policy in regard to removing the Housing Committee from Cardiff to London. I hope it is not too late yet to urge them to reconsider their decision upon that. It involves a question of economy. Cardiff is 150 miles away from London, and it cannot be economical to force every deputation to come up from Cardiff to London in order to have their housing business attended to. Therefore, I hope the Minister of Health will not take the step of closing the Department at Cardiff. I do not know why they should not have a Housing Committee of their own. Why

should they come up to London with all their business? I consider that it is a great reflection upon the Welsh people to close down the Housing Committee at Cardiff, and, if that be done, I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman when he goes back to his constituency.

I hope the Committee will reject this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman says that the demand which it makes for £800,000 is due to an unforeseen rise in the cost of material. It is very nice to hear the Government confess that they had not foreseen this. Everything that has happened, at any rate since I have been in the House of Commons, has been entirely unforeseen by the Government; but, if honest confession is good for the soul, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's confession with reference to this matter. I do not think, however, that the reason put forward is a bonâ fide reason. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he did foresee that the prices of these building materials would go up, but he was hindered, by those who were behind him in the House of Commons, in taking the action that he ought to have taken in the interests of the country. We are getting to-night a very good lesson as to the virtues of private enterprise. Private enterprise has never been restricted in building houses, and yet we have to-day a scarcity of at least 200,000 working-class dwellings in this country. I was going from here to Paddington the other day, and on the way I counted no less than 51 mansions that were either to let or for sale. That shows that there is no scarcity whatever of houses for the wealthy classes. It is only the toiling millions who are left without houses, and that is the charge that we bring against the Government. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to go down into his constituency and defend this Vote.

Sir A. MOND rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 56.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)


Baird, sir John Lawrence
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnston, Major Harry
Birchall, J. Dearman


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas


Borwick, Major G. O.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briggs, Harold
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Carr, W. Theodore
Johnstone, Joseph
Seddon, J. A.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Casey, T. W.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kollaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simm, M. T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Sugden, W. H.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Sutherland, Sir William


Dean, Commander P. T.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Taylor, J.


Doyle, N. Grattan
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macquisten, F. A.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Tickler, Thomas George


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Martin, A. E.
Townley, Maximilian G


Evans, Ernest
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Falcon, Captain Michael
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Tryon, Major George Clement


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Waddington, R.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wallace, J.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Forrest, Walter
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Morrison, Hugh
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Whitla, Sir William


Gardner, Ernest
Neal, Arthur
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nield, Sir Herbert
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Green, Albert (Derby)
Parker, James
Windsor, Viscount


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wise, Frederick


Gregory, Holman
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wolmer, Viscount


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perring, William George
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pratt, John William
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.



Haslam, Lewis
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hallas, Eldred
Rendall, Atheistan


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Halls, Walter
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hancock, John George
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Thomas
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas

Question put accordingly, "That a sum not exceeding £5 be granted for said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 169.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Halls, Walter
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hancock, John George
Rendall, Atheistan


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Swan, J, E.


Cape, Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenyon, Barnet
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kiley, James Daniel
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Hon. A, C. (Aberdeen)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Pratt, John William


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gregory, Holman
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnston, Major Harry
Haslam, Lewis
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Seddon, J. A.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hood, Sir Joseph
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon, John


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simm, M. T.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Briggs, Harold
Johnstone, Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Campbell, J. D. G.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sturrock, J, Leng


Carr, W. Theodore
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sugden, W. H.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Wellington)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sutherland, Sir William


Casey, T. W.
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson. Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Tickler, Thomas George


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Townley, Maximilian G


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wallace, J.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Martin, A. E.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Whitla, Sir William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col- J. T. C.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Evans, Ernest
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Windsor, Viscount


Falcon, Captain Michael
Morrison, Hugh
Wise, Frederick


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wolmer, Viscount


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nield, Sir Herbert
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Parker, James
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gardner, Ernest
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Perkins, Walter Frank
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Perring, William George



Green, Albert (Derby)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

rose in his place, and claimed, "That the original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 58.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gregory, Holman
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pratt, John William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, S, (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C (Kent)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Haslam, Lewis
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Berwick, Major G. O.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Seddon, J. A.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hood, Sir Joseph
Seely, Major-General - Rt. Hon. John


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Briggs, Harold
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Simm, M. T.


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
Johnstone, Joseph
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George
Sturrock, J. Leng


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Casey, T. W.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sutherland, Sir William


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd, George Butler
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vers Ferrers


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Wallace, J.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Dean, Commander P. T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Whitla, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Martin, A. E.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Evans, Ernest
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Windsor, Viscount


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Forrest, Walter
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neal, Arthur
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gardner, Ernest
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nield, Sir Herbert
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parker, James



Goff, Sir R. Park
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Albert (Derby)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Perring, William George





NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Halls, Walter
Robertson, John


Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E.)
Hancock, John George
Rose, Frank H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kennedy, Thomas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kiley, James Daniel
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Finney, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

DISPOSAL AND LIQUIDATION COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This is one of those Supplementary Estimates which are required to square accounts. For compensation and non-recurring expenditure an additional sum of £2,250,000 is required, and against that there is set additional appropriations-in-aid of £2,249,900, leaving a sum of £100 to be voted by the Committee. The compensation and non-recurring expenditures is, generally speaking, the payments made upon a settlement of claims against the British Government, mostly in respect of services performed and goods supplied during the War, and also there are payments to be made on the settlement of claims such as Petitions of Right in respect of matters arising during the War period and the period shortly after the War. This is all fresh expenditure, for which this Vote provides, and against that there is to be set fresh appropriations-in-aid, which are partly in the nature of recoveries made by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission from other Government Departments.
The Committee are entitled to ask why this Supplementary Estimate is necessary. The reason is that this was the most difficult of all Estimates to estimate with any degree of certainty. It arises almost entirely out of legal proceedings. Legal proceedings, notoriously, are uncertain as to the time when they come to a head and as to their result, and the amount which the State may be called upon to expend, either by way of final payment or in settlement in consequence of legal proceedings, is most difficult to foresee more closely on the very large total result of this sphere of administration in the original Estimate. In the original Estimate it will be within the memory of the Committee that it was thought right to insert a special footnote by way of warning as to the necessary uncertainty of the Estimate which was then made. The Appropriations-in-Aid are very largely
payments recovered from other Departments, a substantial amount of which, it was expected when last year's Estimates were presented, would be recovered in the last financial year, but it turned out that those recoveries could not be made, and they now stand available in this year's account. There is here no new charge or no new scheme of expenditure or unforeseen expenditure. It is all a question of recognised and acknowledged charges which now come into account, charges which are quite beyond controversy, which we had to meet some time and which chance to come into account during this financial year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite did this Vote justice in his explanation. He expresses the maximum of thought in the minimum of words, and though his terseness is only equalled by his lucidity there are certain points on which the Committee would like explanation. Recently some booklets were issued, known as the Geddes Report. Volume 2 of this Report, which I am sorry I have not with me, while the Vote Office has run out of copies, damns this Disposal Liquidation Commission with faint praise, and in particular draws attention to the enormous quantities of stocks which have been held up and turned over to various Departments to maintain. All this has cost a great deal of money. Four years' war stocks are held by the Board of Trade and, I understand, by most of the Government Departments. This is very rightly criticised by the Geddes Committee as extravagant.

Mr. YOUNG: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it might shorten the discussion if I observe that in this Supplementary Estimate no sum at all is charged in respect of disposals.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands the drift of my argument. There have been sales of £2,249,900, and the Disposal Liquidation Commission ought to have many more savings to bring into account, and instead of asking for money they ought to be presenting us with a handsome surplus. They have had the whole war stocks to dispose of, and if they had done their business properly they should have had a large
amount for us. That argument is pertinent to this Vote. The policy of holding up these vast stocks for a high price when they should have been realised has had a deadly effect on the industrial production and trade of the country. As long as manufacturers and merchants knew that the Government held these enormous stocks of what was vulgarly known as junk, which they might throw on the market at any moment, they hesitated to embark on production. The result was unemployment and distress. The advantage expected from keeping back these stocks has not been realised, and injury to the manufacturing and commercial community has resulted.
It would have been much better to chuck the whole thing on the market and get what could be got for it at the time and thus prevent the injury to trade which resulted from holding up and get rid of a large army of people, clerks, storekeepers and others, who were battened and lived on the policy of looking after these enormous stocks. I am not making an attack on the very distinguished business men who have been disposing of the Government stores. They, no doubt, were hampered by hampering instructions from the Government, and, whatever else may be said, I do believe that there has been very little corruption in carrying out the disposal of our surplus stores. If every country in Europe could say the same they would have as much reason to be proud as we have, but, as we know, unfortunately that is not the case.
With regard to the actual items which we are given in the Estimate, I would ask for details of these new and unforeseen claims which the Canadian and Italian Governments made. What are they? Why were they unforeseen? Were they lost sight of in the general confusion of the after-War period? They must be for considerable sums of money, because, together with the English railway companies' claim, they come to £2,250,000. How much is the claim of the Canadian Government, and how much the claim of the Italian Government, and for what services are they made? For what amount do the English railway companies ask? I understood that the ex-Member for Cambridge made a wonderful bargain with the railway companies, and settled for them on a basis which saved some millions of money for us. Why, then,
does this English railway company's demand come out like a cat, of which we thought we had got rid some years ago, suddenly returning to the scene of her former activities? Are these the last of the railway companies' claims, or will the next Government, which I hope will be in power in a very few weeks, be faced with all sorts of unforeseen claims by foreign Governments and British railways? We are entitled to details on these points. Which of the railway companies are claiming, and why did not Sir Eric Geddes settle with them?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member must not refer to the right hon. Gentleman in that way. The right hon. Gentleman is still Member for Cambridge.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought he had accepted a Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead. No disrespect was intended. I dare say there is a very good explanation, and we would be very glad to have it. What are the petitions of right mentioned in the Estimate? Who is bringing them forward, and what amounts do they involve? It will not take the Financial Secretary long to give us those few details. With regard to the appropriations-in-aid, we should also have some further details. It is extraordinary how the Government always finds appropriations-in-aid calculated just to cover the larger sums asked for in an Estimate. Next year they will bring forward a Supplementary Estimate, saying that the appropriation-in-aid did not come to quite as much as they expected, and so the little game of financial juggling still goes on, and the House of Commons will be deceived, but not, fortunately, the taxpayer and the voter. The principal receipt here is from the British Australian Wool Realisation Association for storage services. That is very interesting from the point of view of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. We have got some very fine sheds in Hull erected by the Government, or with Government assistance, for storing wool. If these sheds have been such a paying proposition that the Government can show nearly 2¼ millions of profit, I should like to know more about it. We should be informed, further, as to what the people of Hull have done in this respect.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: And the people of Stoke-on-Trent.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The sheds are in Hull and it is our careful stevedoring and our faithful working of these sheds—[An HON. MEMBER: "Woolgathering!"]—which I presume accounts for this sum. The people of Stoke-on-Trent, much as I admire them, have nothing to do with that. We should know whether we can count on large sums of this kind in the future? We should know if this refers to the wool sheds in Hull, and, if so, will this saving recur in future years? I would recommend the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Government here to answer the strictures of the Geddes Committee, because I dare say there will not be another opportunity on his part of doing so. These Supplementary Estimates for what are apparently small sums should be treated with great care and circumspection. When we see that an original Estimate of £3,600,000 has suddenly been swollen to very nearly £6,000,000, we should look carefully into the whole circumstances. The mere fact that estimated appropriations in aid to a large amount can be brought forward ought not to disarm criticism completely, and I hope we shall receive some enlightenment upon these matters.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend in asking for more details as to the appropriations in aid as well as particulars regarding the claims put forward by the railway companies amongst others. The House of Commons is being treated in a cavalier fashion. We are being asked repeatedly to vote sums of money without being told the purpose of those Votes. They are embraced in general headings, and we are given no information on the details of expenditure, while as regards income, we are seldom given any details either. Here we have appropriations in aid which almost cover the additional expenditure.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: The representative of the Government on the Front Bench is not taking any notes.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is the usual way with the Government. They will not take any notice until a few more by-elections compel them to do so. I am quite certain if the Financial Secretary were an interested shareholder in any public com-
pany he would not allow the chairman of that company to ride off on an item of this kind, submitted in this manner. He would want the particulars of income and expenditure shown in the balance sheet. I have a recollection of what has been done before with regard to appropriations in aid taken by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. We have been selling factories and stores all over the country, by public auction, for what we could get, and that money which should have been paid in to meet the debts of the country was put into the income of the country, although it was actually the result of selling off what was looked upon as the capital of the country. That would not be passed by a public auditor scrutinising the report of a public company—a procedure by which the capital of the company is sold off and entered into the income of the company. With regard to the amounts mentioned as for compensation, what has been the amount paid to the Canadian Government? What was the claim of the Italian Government and how much was the claim settled for? Those are matters on which the House is entitled to have knowledge; and as regards the railway companies, has not the country been sufficiently bled by them? What is the exact amount for which they are bleeding us now? Is it the £2,200,000, and is the other odd £50,000 the amount that is going to the Canadian and Italian Governments, or is it the other way about? What are the actual sums which the country is being invited to pay to these Governments on the one hand and to the railway companies on the other?
The Financial Secretary may say that we are not being asked to vote money because the Appropriations-in-Aid meet the Estimate, but these Appropriations-in-Aid might be devoted to some better purpose, and we should know exactly why these items have to be met. We have a right to know for what purpose we are paying away money, and if we are not going to have that information, then the Committee is being treated by the Government in a scandalous manner. We are the custodians of the public purse. We are expected to look upon finance as something for which we must be responsible when we go before our constituents. We are asked to take that responsibility, and we would be neglecting our responsi-
bility, and would deserve to lose our seats, were we not to take an interest in what the Government brings before us on these matters of finance. The only firm mentioned as having paid in any thing is the British Australian Wool Realisation Association, and that is for storage. Is the whole sum of £2,249,000 storage, and has it all been paid by this association? If not, from what other sources has this sum been drawn? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this particular Appropriation-in-Aid was not the result of money realised from the sale of Government factories or their contents. We are quite prepared to accept that, but if he is willing to give us information as to what it does not consist of, will he give us information as to what it does consist of? We are told that recoveries have been made from other Government Departments, but the hon. Member mentioned no other such Government Department. If other Government Departments have had certain things which they had to get rid of, and in respect of which money has been realised, surely we have a right to know which Government Departments, and whether they were right in getting rid of those things, or whether they were diminishing the Departments in such a way as to meet economy by sacrificing efficiency. It may save the Debate going any further if we get the information we want, but as long as the hon. Member withholds that information we are perfectly entitled to continue the Debate until we compel him or some other Member of the Government to tell us what we want to know.

Sir R. COOPER: It is amazing to me, under present conditions, when the Government itself professes to be desirous of cutting down expenditure, and appoints a most important Committee to examine the different Departments, and when it knows what intense feeling there is in the country, that any Government Department dare come down here and ask for a Vote of £2,250,000, with not an hon. Member of this Committee in a position to have the slightest knowledge of where a penny piece of it is going. I regard this as a very grave matter indeed, and I can think of no greater affront or insult to hon. Members of this Committee, who, in matters of finance in particular, are supposed to have a special preroga-
tive and a special right. How can any men, in this Committee or outside, meet together and consider a demand of this nature when no information of any description is offered to them? It is impossible for us intelligently to discuss this Vote, and I think we are entitled to ask from the Financial Secretary at once for a reasonable statement of what this money is for, and, if that cannot be given us, I shall venture to ask permission to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

Sir G. COLLINS: I also think the Committee is entitled to a little more information as to the considerable sum of public money which is being voted this evening. May I just pay a tribute to the really successful work which the late President of the Disposals Board, a Member of the other House, performed on that Board, but the Committee this evening is discussing this particular Vote, and the Financial Secretary reminded us that these two items were really to square the account. The first item is £2,250,000. These claims, we understand, were pending when the original Estimate was framed. What are the total claims still pending? What are the total debits which will arise in future? We know undoubtedly that there are large claims still pending against the Disposals Board. It is true, on the other hand, that during the last three years the Disposals Board has sold large quantities of stores, and, as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said, that money has been put for purposes of revenue. I might mention in passing that £520,000,000 worth of stores have been sold by the Disposals Board, and that that money has been spent by the Government in its yearly expenditure, and the Debt has not been reduced
Let me ask this further question of the Financial Secretary. Claims have been received from the Italian Government, but the British Government surely has some claims against the Italian Government. The Italian Government is owing this country large sums of money. Is the British taxpayer to meet these claims and have no account taken of the large sums which the Italian Government is owing to the British public? Every hon. Member in this Committee is anxious to deal fairly and justly with any of our late Allies during the War, but the British taxpayers' interest must also be con-
sidered. We do not know the amount—it may be only a small amount—but if it is to be a large amount, I suggest that if, on the one hand, this country is paying sums over to the Italian Government, it is justly entitled to take into account that the Italian Government is owing this country a large sum of money. The question of how much is to be paid to the English railway companies has been raised, and we hope we shall have an answer on that point. The second item, Appropriations-in-Aid, as the Financial Secretary stated, was an asset at the beginning of the last financial year, but the sums were not forthcoming through certain circumstances, and were driven forward to this year. What further assets will fall due or will be recoverable or recovered from other Government Departments? What is the total figure? I am anxious that the Committee, when voting this large sum of money, should be in a position to see the sums due on the one hand and the sums which are liable to be paid on the other.
Reference has been made by more than one hon. Member to the necessity of a quicker disposal of our assets. The Geddes Report undoubtedly brought out that, according to the policy of His Majesty's Government, each Department of the State is permitted to hold four years' stock of stores on a falling market. Instead of endeavouring to sell these stores and thus reduce the stocks and the accommodation and the number of people who are employed in handling these stores, the Government, by the definite policy which this Report brings out, has clearly laid it down that four years' stock of stores is to be kept by the War Office and the Army and the other Departments. My contention is that if that policy had not been adopted by His Majesty's Government, the sums recoverable this year under Sub-head H (Appropriations-in-Aid) would be very much larger, and, instead of £2,250,000 being received through the sale of stores in the different Government Departments, the figure might have been very considerably increased. The longer these stores are held, as every business man knows, the more they depreciate in value. They not only depreciate in value, but, as I have pointed out, large storage accommodation and a large staff are necessitated. Therefore, we press the Government, when they
come to the House of Commons to find £2,250,000, no doubt rightly due to the Canadian and Italian Governments and the English railway companies, to have regard in future to the necessity of reducing the stock of stores. At the same time, if the Financial Secretary can inform the Committee as to the total claims pending against the Disposal Board which are not settled, and the total amount of Appropriation-in-Aid which will become due in the coming year, the Committee will be in a better position to vote the sum required.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Might I ask the hon. Member whether he advises the Departments to sell goods on a falling market to people who do not want to buy them?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will allow the hon. Member to mention it, but not in order to discuss it.

Mr. WALLACE: I should like to put one question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members must wait until they catch my eye.

Sir R. COOPER: May I ask if it is possible for hon. Members to know what is in order or what is not in order, when one has not the slightest knowledge, of what this Vote covers?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Are we really to take this discussion as serious, or is it merely opposition?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MYERS: I want to refer to the Appropriations-in-Aid specified as coming from other Departments. If these Appropriations-in-Aid are realised from the sale of Government properties, those properties are, in the main, the remnants or the residue of the articles which were provided for the exigencies of War-time. These things which were provided for the prosecution of the War were very largely provided with borrowed money. That money is still owing at 5 per cent, and 6 per cent. If any local authority appealed to the Treasury or any other Government Department for a loan, and they disposed of any part of the property purchased out of that loan, the Government auditor would insist upon that money being put to the reduction
of debt. If that is good policy for the local authority, and is insisted upon by the Government, then the Government ought to practise what they impose on the local authorities. Further, I would join with those who seek information on the item which refers to payments made to the English railway companies. The British public are in the main acquainted with the general relationships which have prevailed between the Government and the railway companies. The public are acquainted with the fact that up to the autumn of last year the railway companies were guaranteed their 1913 profits for each year, and got those profits. If the railways did not make them, they receive those profits at the hands of the British taxpayer. The public are also acquainted with the fact that £30,000,000 was spent on the railway companies during the current financial year, and that another £30,000,000 is to be paid in the financial year ahead. We are also aware of the fact that this payment is in conflict with the finding of an important Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn. There is a general impression abroad, which we on this side share, that the railway companies have had quite enough out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, and we are entitled to ask for information as to what this item is for, and from what point of view it can be justified.

Mr. KILEY: The details of the Vote refer to large claims put forward by the Canadian and Italian Governments and the English railway companies. If these claims are limited to that it might, to some extent, simplify the discussion, but I should like to have some assurance that that is actually the case. I am anxious to know, for instance, whether the Government are still running large manufacturing concerns? The Financial Secretary shakes his head. May I call attention to one? Are not the Government or the Disposal Board running a large manufacturing company in the district of Chelmsford known as the Hoffmann Ball Bearing Company, Limited?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that has anything to do with this Vote. We are only dealing with the items in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. KILEY: I am anxions to know whether the Government, out of this sum
which we are now asked to Vote, are subsidising this factory. If they are not, then I need not pursue the matter, but I am asking the Financial Secretary if he will make it clear whether those great works are self-supporting, or are being subsidised?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he cannot ask this question or discuss it. It does not come under the Vote at all.

Mr. KILEY: I am endeavouring to ascertain from the Financial Secretary whether there is any money out of this sum for that purpose. If he tells me there is not, then I need not pursue the matter, but, if there is, I submit, with all respect, I am entitled, subject, of course, to your ruling, to raise the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member put the question, and could not receive an answer, because he is in possession of the Committee, and he proceeded to discuss the matter on the assumption that the answer would be in the affirmative. He has no right to go on discussing it on the assumption that his conjecture is right. So far as I understand, it has nothing to do with the Vote.

Mr. KILEY: My excuse is that the Financial Secretary sent one or two wireless messages across, either for or against.

Mr. YOUNG: It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I state now that there is no money voted on this Supplementary Estimate which can find its way to the concern to which he has referred.

Mr. KILEY: I shall not, of course, continue that, but I shall be glad when the Financial Secretary replies if he will state what this Vote does actually represent. If this particular works to which I have referred is not included, are there any such works which the Financial Secretary or the Disposal Board are subsidising in any way besides the three sections mentioned on the Paper? If there is no money for any other purpose, I do not wish to continue the discussion.

Mr. J. WALLACE: Unfortunately, I did not hear the opening statement of the hon. Gentleman, but I see that under Head D there is an amount of £2,250,000
to which frequent reference has been made. The only thing that occurs to me about this is that the Committee is entitled to know the amount of each individual claim. To me it does not look like a business proceeding to lump the claims together in this manner. Hon. Members are entitled to know what were the amounts in which Canada and Italy were concerned, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be glad to furnish the information to the Committee. There is another point, with reference to the debts due to us from the Italian Government. I should like to know how much the Italian Government's claim is upon us, and why it is necessary that we should require a certain amount of money under this Vote for a Government which owes us money.

Mr. YOUNG: I think I may now reply to the various questions which have been addressed to me. The only preliminary observation I would make is that it is a little difficult to know what points to explain until one learns what are the points on which information is desired. On the questions which have been raised as to the general policy of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, I may say that the rate of liquidation is always under the most anxious and immediate consideration of the Commission. I think the Committee will agree with me that we as a Commission could get no better advice than we are receiving from the gentlemen of great commercial experience and ability who serve on the Commission. Let me explain, first of all, as to the Appropriations-in-Aid, that what is received in the course of this year by the Disposal and Liquidation Commissions is expected to be a good sum.
Generally speaking, some of the criticism is no doubt due to the fact of the way the accounts are presented. We have to present the accounts of such services in this gross form, whereas business concerns present their accounts for information to the shareholders in a net form. Let me say in reply to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) that the items of accounts for the services referred to here are claims put forward by the Canadian and Italian Governments and the English railway companies, and one or two other small claims which are specified. There is no
money for such concerns as those to which he referred, nor indeed for any other purpose than that put down. The Canadian Government claim dates back to 1916, and it is for railway material supplied from Canada for our use on the Western front. This was for railway materials which we required to use in building lines on the Western front, 458 miles together, with all the necessary turnouts, fastenings, and so on. This claim for goods supplied has been somewhat delayed. I understand it has been delayed owing to the Canadian Government having for some time found itself in a position with which we are not unfamiliar here, or were not—that is, some doubt as to whether or not it was going to buy its own railways. The claim was postponed until it was assured as to what its policy was going to be. The Government have decided not to purchase in respect of this paritcular line, and the account has been formally presented. It was very important that if possible we should meet it at once.

Sir R. COOPER: What is the amount?

Mr. YOUNG: One million. There is the cost of replacing these rails, of lifting and loading them, taking them across the sea, and so on. Of course, these various claims will be carefully scrutinised. The second claim is one from the English railway companies, and I have been asked naturally, how does this claim relate itself to the general railway subsidy. It is not precisely of the same character as that. It is railway track actually lifted and sold to us for use on the Western front during the War. I fear I cannot claim to be an expert in the great railway settlement, but I have been informed by those well acquainted with the matter that this claim as between seller and purchaser for goods sold and actually transported came under none of the headings of the great railway settlement. It is of an entirely different character and one that has to be settled by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission.

Sir F. BANBURY: What does it amount to?

Mr. YOUNG: Three hundred thousand pounds. This is to the English railway companies for the replacement of permanent way.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is that the total of the claims sent in or are there any other claims?

Mr. YOUNG: This is an estimate of what the claims amount to. As to that, undoubtedly it will be essential that they shall be checked by the accountants and those familiar with this rather complex and expert theme of railway accounts. It will require the most careful scrutiny by those who are acquainted with matters of the sort.

Major BARNES: What is the mileage involved?

Mr. YOUNG: I will try and get it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why the long delay in presenting the claim?

Mr. YOUNG: It is some time since the last Estimate. That probably accounts for the account being left unsettled while the general railway settlement has taken place; for these have not been able to get it in the list. Now as to the claim against the Italian Government. A natural misunderstanding has been caused in the criticism owing to a slight ambiguity in the wording of the explanation. This claim has been put forward by the Italian Government on behalf of a private company, and it is not possible to have a set-off against this company. It was a claim for a very large amount for supplies of sulphur made to us during the War in 1916, 1917 and 1918. It was shipped from Italy, and the price had to be paid. The original claim of no less than £1,000,000 was paid in 1918, but subsequently it was discovered that the whole claim had not been put forward against us, and a further claim was put forward and substantiated, and it was for a very large amount.

Sir F. BANBURY: How much?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. The claim was for a large amount, and I do not think it would be possible to specify exactly what it might come to, but as a result of careful scrutiny an offer was made to settle for £600,000.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Have we abandoned the principle of asking the Italian Government to pay this, and debit our account in order that no money need pass?

Mr. YOUNG: I see the point raised by the hon. Member. Such transactions might be a very reasonable method of financial bargaining, but we cannot introduce them in this estimate. It would have been necessary to obtain the authority of the House to make such a payment as this on a Supplementary Estimate, and you cannot have a set-off in an estimate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When we originally bought this sulphur, did we buy it in lire or in sterling?

Mr. YOUNG: I have not the information to enable mc to answer the hon. Member's question, but I will seek to obtain it on the first opportunity. What I have said accounts for £600,000, and my final observation is that the transaction is not yet closed. It is still the subject of negotiations. This offer of £600,000 has been made, and it is likely to be accepted. Perhaps it is inadvisable for me to go into closer details. There is another claim from the Colonial Office for mica supplied. In the year 1916 there was a shortage of mica during the War, and arrangements were made with British East Africa under which mica was shipped here, and distributed amongst the British manufacturers. The claim was financed from the fund of the East African Administration, and it amounted to £100,000, which has been paid by the Colonial Office to those who bore the burden of the finance at that time. We have an asset of £42,000 on this account for the sale of surplus stock, but that cannot come into the Appropriation-in-Aid Account, and it has to go into the Exchequer.
With regard to the storage of wool, I am told that the actual places in respect to which these payments have been made for storage does not include the city of Hull. It is possible there will be some income in the future from this course, but I cannot estimate it now. In the present year the receipts have reached a substantial sum amounting to a quarter of a million. As regards the future, I should find a difficulty in giving particulars, but they will be found in the next year's Estimates for these services, and details cannot be anticipated before the publication of the Estimates. As regards the general prospects of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, it is estimated that there will still be a turnover of
several millions, but there is every prospect that the debit and credit items will balance each other. I think I have summarised and answered the various questions put to me, and given the information for which I have been asked.
There have been several large petitions of right which we have managed to bring to a settlement which we expected to go better than they did, or, at any rate, we did not expect them to come to a head so soon. Circumstances have been less favourable for us, and we have had to settle, and this fact accounts largely for the excess of this Vote. There were two items, one was a large claim from the Hispano Suiza, a Spanish company, which manufactured aeroplane engines and which advanced a very large claim at the close of the War. The total claim was for £270,000, but acting on the advice of the Law Officers, this claim was finally settled for £205,000. The next largest claim which deserves mention was also from Italy. It was on behalf of the F.I.A.T. Company, manufacturers of engines also, which presented a claim for no less than £750,000 in connection with the cancellation of the contract. On legal advice this was finally settled for £150,000. Those are the two claims which have caused the principal difference on the item as to the petition of rights.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Committee is very much indebted to my hon. Friend for the explanation he has now given, but there is one point on which there is doubt in the minds of some Members of the Committee. I refer to the £300,000 to be paid to the English railway companies in respect of services they have rendered in France or rails which they have provided.

Mr. YOUNG: Might I intervene? This is rather important. This is a claim for goods actually sold and delivered, and not for services.

Mr. GRAHAM: I was about to say that, following the proceedings of the Colwyn Committee, an arrangement was arrived at under which the British railways got £60,000,000 in what we understood was full settlement of all their claims, and the Irish railways got £3,000,000. Now the hon. Member says the supply of goods to France is an external matter, a different item, for which a provision of
£300,000 has to be made under the Supplementary Estimate. As one who had occasion to look at the railway agreements closely, I agree at once with the general proposition, but I have a very great doubt on this point, namely, Was there any connection between the supply of those goods for use in France and that part of the settlement of £60,000,000 which had reference to rails, materials, and stores? We know that certain lines in Great Britain were closed during the War, and there were other agreements regarding rails, stores, and other departments of railway enterprise, and there was very grave doubt indeed as to what all the agreements under these several heads meant. I have nothing more to ask to-night if I can be thoroughly satisfied, as a Member of that Committee, that there is in this claim for railway material sent to France no connection between the railway enterprise on this side of the Channel.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £50.
The hon. Member who has just sat down is not quite clear, I think, on what took place. At the beginning of the War, certainly in 1915 or 1916, certain rails, rolling stock, and engines, which belonged to the companies, were sold to the Government for use abroad. That had nothing to do with the settlement later for £51,000,000—£60,000,000 less £9,000,000—which was a settlement of any claims the railways might have against the Government after the railways had been handed back to the companies. These are old items and should have been settled many years ago. I think the statement of the Financial Secretary is satisfactory, as far as it goes, but I do not think it is satisfactory with regard to the Italian Government. I am not questioning the claim of these private people. I gather there are two claims, one for sulphur, from an Italian firm which was settled for £600,000, and another claim was from an Italian firm, which asked for £700,000 and settled for £150,000. If hon. Members will look at page 41, they will see that the claims are in the name of the Italian Government. They will see it states:
Large claims which could not have been foreseen when framing the original Estimates have been put forward by the Canadian and Italian Governments.
That being so, the statement of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) is unanswerable. I do not know why the Italian Government put forward this claim, but it is the Italian Government we are dealing with, and as the Italian Government owes money to us, surely the business way would be to say, "We will settle this claim for such and such an amount, but you owe us, say, £5,000,000 (for the sake of argument). We will take £750,000 from the £5,000,000, and your debt to us will be £4,250,000." Surely that is a business proposition. I should have even said it was a business proposition if the claim had been put forward by private Italian firms. It would have been quite in consonance with financial equity to have said to the Italian Government, "We owe your subjects certain sums, but you owe us a great deal more, and therefore you must settle with your subjects, and, we will then settle with you." If I owed the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hilton Young) £20 and he owed me £5, would he pay me £5 and let me still owe him the £20? I do not for a moment believe that he would. We are actually paying the Italian Government when that Government owes us a very much larger sum. I move this reduction in order that the House may show its reprobation of such an extremely unbusinesslike effort.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I think the explanation is perfectly simple. Suppose the right hon. Baronet was in the position of that Italian firm with a legal claim against the British Government? Would he transfer his claim against the British Government to the Italian Government?

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a claim made by the Italian Government. I was pointing out that even if it had been made by the firm there might be something to be said for telling the Italian Government, "Settle with your own people." But this is a claim made by the Italian Government.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Surely the claim is put forward just as claims against enemy firms were put forward on our behalf by our Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is put forward by the Italian Government.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I have had experience of the process myself. I had a claim against a German firm, and put it
forward through my own Government. I did not expect to improve my credit by putting forward the claim in that way, but obviously I think we may say, without any unfriendliness or unkindliness, that a claim against the British Government is very much better to have than a claim against the Italian Government. Therefore, unless the firm in question will give its consent to the transfer of the debt to the Italian Government from our shoulders, I do not see that we have any locus standi legally to negotiate with the Italian Government and to write off that debt against the debt owing to us by the Italian Agent. The whole question turns on what this firm considers the respective values of British credit and Italian credit. If the idea had occurred to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he was speaking, I think he would have given exactly the explanation which I have given.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I started this hare and I should like to say a word or two with regard to the views of the last speaker. Great Britain having bought sulphur, or anything else, from an Italian firm for so many lire, what does it matter to that firm if it gets the lire from the Italian Government or the British Government? Suppose we say to the Italian Government: "We are not going to pay this account and you must settle with your nationals the-amount that we owe to your nationals. If you do not settle it, that is your affair. If you will settle it with your nationals, we will credit you with that amount and deduct it from the amount that you owe us."

Mr. HOPKINSON: At once we should get a motion in the Courts in this country claiming the debts of the firm to whom we owed money, and presumably the firm would win.

Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, if they brought an action against us we should have no legal right to defend it. But in the case as it now stands, with Italy owing us an enormous amount of money, I do not think that in honour or as a matter of policy they would willingly deny us the right to take that amount of credit from her. If an Italian firm served us with a writ in our own Courts, we should have no answer. But there is another aspect. The Italian Government
owes this money, and I do not think that in honour she would deny our request when we asked her to pay the account of her nationals.

Major BARNES: It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Mossley is right in his statement of the case, and that this matter could be settled only by consent and by arrangement with the Italian Government. The point that is really material here is to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether an attempt has been made to effect an arrangement of that kind. I listened to the Financial Secretary's answer, and I do not think it was altogether satisfactory, in view of some recent proceedings of the Treasury. He said: "You cannot set off the claim of the one party by a counter-claim against the other." Very recently, however, the Treasury agreed to a transaction of that kind. The Treasury had a claim against France for coal that we had supplied. France had a claim against Italy for coal that France had supplied to Italy. We agreed to allow France to set off against our claim on her, her claim on Italy. Arrangements of that kind are, therefore, possible, and have been made.

Mr. HOPKINSON: If the creditor accepts.

Major BARNES: Exactly. The force of the case against the Financial Secretary is not a legal force, but if representations were made with sufficient conviction to the Italian Government, it would probably lead the Italian Government to take upon its shoulders what is properly its own burden, and protect the overburdened people of this country against having to find the money asked for under this Vote. As to the claim being made by the English railway companies, so ably represented in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and as to the demand for £300,000 for material supplied in the War area during the War, I would mention that, as a Member of the Colwyn Committee, I remember to some extent what took place. I think I am so far in agreement with the Financial Secretary as to admit that this claim was put upon a different footing from the rest of the claims made by the railway companies, and was submitted by them as something quite outside the agreements. My recol-
lection is not that that point was fully sustained and admitted, because there is a distinct bearing of the agreements upon this very matter. After all, the agreement to give the railway companies their net receipts in 1913 was based upon the rendering of the same service, and one of the points made on the Colwyn Committee, in the case of the steamboat services, was that where steamboats had been lost it was not a fair thing for the companies to receive the same net receipts and to make no deductions on account of the loss of the steamboat service. The same argument is pertinent to the matter now in hand. The net receipts for 1913 should certainly not be payable without deduction when a very considerable amount of railway mileage has been taken up and sent to France. If this point had been pursued don the Colwyn Committee we should have insisted on some deduction being made from the net receipts in respect of it. But no settlement was arrived at by the Committee, and all the House was presented with ultimately was a lump sum settlement for £60,000,000.
It is a matter of surprise to me to find this amount presented in this account. Questions on this matter should be more properly addressed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He is conversant with the matter, and the House ought to be definitely assured that in making up a sum of £60,000,000 this matter was expressly excluded. I do not think it sufficient to tell us that it was not included because there was a lump sum settlement. The idea in the mind of the House certainly was that the £60,000,000 wiped off all the claims of the railway companies. Before the House can be satisfied on the point it must be assured that this particular claim was considered at the time of that settlement, and was expressly excluded as something outside that settlement and something for which the House would be asked for a final amount. Unless that explanation is given I shall not be satisfied with the matter as it stands, and if the Motion for the reduction of the Vote is pursued I shall support it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I make no apology for returning one moment to the mystery of the Italian sulphur firm. I want to ask a question. Do I understand that all the firms which supplied goods to the Italian Government,
the munition firms who supplied wheat and flour to the Italians, are all being paid by us, and that all the Italian firms which supplied hides and sulphur to us are also being paid by us? Do we pay our firms which supplied goods to Italy and also pay Italian firms which supplied goods to this country? If that be the policy there will never be an ending to the settling of these questions. I can see no end to the payments we shall have to make by petitions of right or writs in the Court.

Sir F. BANBURY: The argument put forward by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) does not seem to me to deal with the question at all. He says, "I have made a claim against the German Government through my Government." That must have been a claim for goods supplied before the War, because during the War he would not have dealt with Germany. That was a claim dealt with in the Treaty of Versailles. There all claims against enemy countries were arranged for in a certain way. I quite admit that if the Italian firm in question had brought an action direct against the Government here, always supposing that the Government dealt directly with the Italian firm, we should have been bound to pay the Italian firm. But if hon. Members will look at the Estimate they will see in it nothing about the Italian firm. It is the Italian Government, and why do they say the "Government" if it is merely a firm? I rather agree with the hon. Member opposite who wants to know whether any attempt has been made to point out to the Italian Government that it is their duty to settle with their own subjects. There is nothing particularly novel in that, because only last Friday we were told that our own Government were settling in Ireland on this basis, that the Sinn Fein people were to deal with their own subjects, and we were to deal with our own subjects. Why should not the Italians in the same way deal with their own subjects? If it is good enough for Sinn Fein it should be good enough for the Italians. It does seem extraordinary we should pay to the Italian Government such a sum of money as is now proposed when that Government owe us a very much larger sum.

Mr. YOUNG: There is, I think, a slight misunderstanding as to the nature of the case. As a matter of fact there is very
little between my critics and myself. When any counterclaim exists between ourselves and the Italian Government account is taken of it in the banking operations, and we set off what we owe to the Italian Government against what they owe to us. But in this case there is an obligation by us to pay to a private firm or person. The person legally entitled to receive the money is the private firm or person. If they agree to accept payment from the Italian Government and if the Italian Government agree to pay then it could be set off against the Italian debt to this country. But my point is this. We cannot come to the House to give us authority to thus deal with a balance of account transaction. Whatever set off we might agree to in a banking sense between the Italian Government and ourselves, we should still have to ask the House for authority to make the gross payment. It might come back as Appropriations-in-Aid—

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the money come back as an Appropriation-in-Aid?

Mr. YOUNG: I cannot say. There are many matters between ourselves and the Italian Government, and although the method advocated by the right hon. Baronet is a business method, I submit that on the other hand it is essential for us to come for the gross Vote in point of view of maintaining Parliamentary authority.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has, answered the question put to him as to, whether in fact negotiations have taken place and any attempt been made to set off this money against the debt which the Italian Government owes us, and until we get an answer to that I shall feel inclined to support the right hon. Baronet opposite if he presses his Amendment to a Division. There is another question which has not been answered, and that is whether this sum of £300,000 to be paid to the railways was expressly excluded from the £60,000,000 lump sum settlement. We have this year to provide £30,000,000, and next year we shall be called upon to provide another £30,000,000. Was this £300,000 expressly excluded by the Colwyn Committee from the lump sum settlement?

Sir F. BANBURY: The railway company had certain claims against the Government which they had formulated and which have now been settled. They had certain other claims which had never been formulated and which they refused to formulate until the first claims had been settled. This £300,000 claim was amongst those which had not been formulated when the settlement was arrived at.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): Perhaps it will be convenient if I reply to this question as to whether this £300,000 was included in the lump sum settlement. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already explained that this is a provision which is being made to cover liabilities which are now becoming apparent, and perhaps I may remind the hon. Member who raised the question that the rights of the Government and the railway companies in respect of this matter are dealt with in the letter which is in the appendix to the Report of the Colwyn Committee, under date 16th November, 1917. That letter sets out the terms under which the Government were to take, not possession of the railways, as they had taken possession of them under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, but to take physical possession of and remove certain of the railway material. Speaking generally, the terms were that the material was to be paid for then at a valuation, but that the labour involved in replacement and the excess cost of that replacement were matters which were to be taken into account later. I understand that the Disposal Board and Commission have received notice of claims in respect of these matters. They are not what the right hon. Baronet called belated claims, but probably claims which are only now capable of being put forward. Every one of those claims must be most carefully scrutinised to see whether or not it is within the £51,000,000. Upon that I would remind the Committee of the terms of Section 11 of the Railways Act, which sets out the nature of the claims which are to be covered by the £51,000,000, as follows:
The payment of the said sum shall be a full discharge and in satisfaction of all claims which might otherwise have been made by any railway company in Great Britain to which this Section applies for compensation under the Regulation of the
Forces Act, 1871, the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of or in respect of the possession by the Crown of the undertaking, railroad, or plant of the said railway company or the exercise of the powers conferred by those Acts.
It is conceived that the possession of this material—the actual taking away and applying to the Government's own use under the terms of the letter of 16th November, 1917—may not come within that Section. But I can assure the Committee that every claim which is put forward in this respect will be most carefully scrutinised, and that no claims will be paid which the Government is not advised are outside the terms of this Section.

Mr. KILEY: Could the hon. Gentleman explain upon what basis the compensation is to be paid for the goods which were taken away? Will it be upon their value at the time when they were taken away, or on their present-day value, which, I understand, is something like 300 per cent, different?

Mr. NEAL: I should be very glad to answer my hon. Friend's question, but he will find the answer more conveniently in the letter to which I have referred, and which is an appendix to the Colwyn Report. It is a very long letter. The material part of it is that the railway companies were to be paid promptly for the material removed, but, in addition, it is stated that the extra cost, if any, of providing the material required in replacing such plant, together with the whole cost of labour involved in such replacement, will be paid by the Government as and when such costs are incurred. All these are matters which call for the closest investigation and scrutiny, and I do not think it is in the public interest that I should say that these claims are claims which must necessarily be admitted against the Government, or that I should say that they are claims which must necessarily be rejected. They obviously are claims which must be investigated, and the present Vote is a provision which is thought reasonable to meet the result of such investigation.

10.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: The explanation we have just received does get us a little farther and makes the position more clear. It differentiates clearly between the claims made by the English railway companies and the claims made by the
Italian Government. When we got to the details of the claims of the Italian Government, we were told by the Financial Secretary that those claims had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and on their advice—I am speaking of the Petition of Right Claims—payment has been made. I gather from what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that that is not the position, as yet, with regard to the claims made by the English railway companies; that they still have to be submitted to that opinion, and that on that opinion they will be paid. I gather, from what the hon. Gentleman read of Section 11, that the question really is whether this plant was removed under the powers given by the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, whether the removal arose out of the circumstances of the possession by the Crown of the undertaking, railroad or plant; and that only if it be decided that they do not come under either of these classes of powers mentioned in Section 11 (2) will these claims be met. That does leave a gleam of hope, at all events, that we may save this £300,000.

Captain BENN: The information that we have gleaned in the Debate on this

Vote is rather alarming. I remember very well the Debate on the Estimate for the £60,000,000, and I remember the Minister of Transport explaining that it was not wise to press him about details, because they had made a very good and final settlement.

Mr. NEAL: The Section says that it was not.

Captain BENN: Now we find—it was not mentioned at the time, either by the hon. Gentleman or by his Cabinet chief—that there are other claims. This is a first instalment of £300,000 to meet other claims, which may be judged to be right and proper, and I suppose we shall have other Supplementary Estimates. Certainly, it comes as somewhat of a revelation, to people who thought that this £60,000,000 settlement was final, to find that it is not final at all, but subject to all sorts of additional claims, which will be placed before the Committee from time to time.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 149.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[10.5 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J, (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Malls, Walter
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hancock, John George
Rose, Frank H.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, George A.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D,


Finney, Samuel
Kiley, James Daniel
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)



Glanville, Harold James
Mills, John Edmund
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Wignall and Major Barnes.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Briggs, Harold
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Atkey, A. R.
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bruton, Sir James
Doyle, N. Grattan


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edge, Captain Sir William


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)


Barnston, Major Harry
Carr, W. Theodore
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Casey, T. W.
Evans, Ernest


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Birchall, J. Dearman
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Forrest, Walter


Blane, T. A.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Green, Albert (Derby)
Maddocks, Henry
Seddon, J. A.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Manville, Edward
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Martin, A. E.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Matthews, David
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gretton, Colonel John
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Morrison, Hugh
Sugden, W. H.


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sutherland, Sir William


Hinds, John
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Taylor, J.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Townley, Maximilian G


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers,


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Parker, James
Waddington, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Waring, Major Walter


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perring, William George
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Johnstone, Joseph
Pratt, John William
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Purchase, H. G.
Windsor, Viscount


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fred. George
Rue, H. Norman
Wise, Frederick


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Reid, D. D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Remer, J. R.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Lindsay, William Arthur
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Lloyd, George Butler
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)



Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Dudley Ward.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,945, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Grants-in-Aid of Piers or Quays.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): It might be convenient that I should explain the three items which are included in this Supplementary Estimate. The first Subhead, F, is for £11,345. This is not new money. It is a re-Vote of money put back from the Fishery Board Estimate for 1920–21 for the purchase of herring. That sum was not spent during the financial year. The bulk of the purchase price of those herrings—I am speaking of what is familiar to Members who represent fishing constituencies—was paid by the Board to curers during the summer of 1920. A further instalment was to be paid a few months later, and a small proportion, namely, 1s. per barrel, was retained pending shipment of these stocks. Shipment was expected to take place during the financial year to which I have
referred, namely, before 31st March, 1921, but owing to the dullness of the Continental market it was not effected until a later date, and accordingly the payment of 1s. a barrel was postponed until the financial year 1921–2, and that sum amounts to £11,345. The second Subhead refers to a repayment on Admiralty drifters, the sum involved being £4,000. In 1919 a scheme was devised by the Admiralty whereby surplus Admiralty drifters were sold to ex-service fishermen at what was at that time regarded as a reasonable price. I am speaking of the year 1919. That scheme provided for payment of the price by instalments spread over a period of 12 years. Unfortunately, the herring fishing industry passed through a period of very acute depression, and the market price of its products dropped very rapidly. Ex-service men, therefore, found themselves in many cases quite unable to pay the instalments as they fell due, and in these circumstances it was decided, after full consideration, to reduce the original price by 25 per cent. It was also thought proper—and I think the Committee will agree with this view—that the concession should extend not only to the fishermen who through acute depression of their industry were unable to pay their instalments, but should also extend to those fishermen who had paid the full instal-
ments during the period in question. This sum of £4,000 is required for the purpose of remitting by 25 per cent, the sum which was due to the Admiralty by the fishermen in question.
The last special head "Appropriations in-Aid" is for the purpose of meeting a sum of £1,600 by which the actual payment has fallen short of the original Estimate. That arises in this way: The original Estimate included as receipts from the sale of Admiralty drifters, £2,000. It was decided, however, that the Admiralty had a prior claim upon these receipts, because of the cost to which they were put in reconditioning the drifters. The amount involved was really £2,000, but against this we have effected a saving of £400 on other items, leaving an estimated deficiency of £1,600. I thought it was desirable to make this brief statement, so that the Committee could understand the sums that are to be voted.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The Committee will be indebted to my right hon. Friend for the explanation he has given on this Vote. I am not quite sure that I followed him in respect of the £11,345 on the first item. That sum was, I think, originally voted in the Estimates 1919–20.

Mr. MUNRO: 1920–21.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I presume that it lapsed to the Treasury, and that we are now asked in this Vote to bring it forward again.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope that I had made it clear that this was not new money. It is re-voting a sum which was not expended in the financial year in which it was originally voted.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: My point is that it lapsed. It was not appropriated for other purposes. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the general position now with regard to the cured herrings which the Government have in stock? Are they disposing of these, and, if so, where? Are they endeavouring to open up new markets for these herrings? I made a request last year that efforts should be made in order to develop the cured herring trade at Scottish ports, and that the Government should not only open up the old markets in Russia and the Baltic ports, but should develop new markets. This Vote gives an opportunity
to inquire from the right hon. Gentleman what endeavours have been made by the Government to assist the Scottish herring industry in that respect, knowing as we do the desperate times through which it has been passing. I presume that this payment of £4,000 in respect of the Admiralty drifters brings this scheme to an end. It has been of great assistance to the ex-service men, and I think the 25 per cent, concession has used the money in a very good cause.

Sir H. COWAN: I do not think the Committee will consider that the concession of 25 per cent, made to the men in respect of the Admiralty drifters, which they bought at top price in 1919, is in any way unreasonable. But when my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) asked the Secretary for Scotland to assure him that this 25 per cent, brings the transaction to an end I feel apprehensive. The men who bought these drifters in 1919, shortly after the Armistice, were ex-service men who, abandoning the opportunity of remaining at fishing and making enormous profits by doing so, devotedly served the State and undertook operations more hazardous, perhaps, than those in any other theatre of war.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I did not ask the Secretary for Scotland to bring the transaction to an end. I asked whether it did bring the transaction to an end.

Sir H. COWAN: I am glad to know that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. These men, who made sacrifices perhaps greater than those rendered by any other branch of the service during the War, were told when the War was over, when they returned to the fishing industry, that they would have the opportunity of acquiring a certain number of Admiralty drifters on terms which would enable them to compete favourably in the industry. What happened was this. They were allowed to acquire these drifters on terms which did seem favourable, but the market value of the drifters fell lower and lower, until to-day men who have not served the country in the War can buy drifters at prices, not 25 per cent., but 50 per cent, lower than the prices which these men were asked to pay. The result is that these ex-service men are unable to compete in the
industry, and unable even to pay the instalments on the purchase price to the State. In the circumstances it is unreasonable to suggest that the concession of this 25 per cent, should bring the transaction to an end, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will use his influence with the Treasury to obtain a further rebate or relief of an equal amount, making in all a rebate of 50 per. cent, on the original price paid for the drifters by these men.
By doing so he will give them a chance of living. Unless this is done, they will have no chance of making a living at all. Men who have made the sacrifices which these men have made for the State, and have returned to their original occupation without capital, without any opportunity of recovering what they lost during the War, should not be imposed upon by the State by being asked to acquire drifters, nominally on terms of the utmost generosity, but really on terms which handicap them in the race of life. I agree with my colleague (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) in hoping that the Government propose to do something more for the fishing industry in Scotland by purchasing herrings or by in some way assisting the industry. I am aware that a very large amount of assistance has been given to the industry during the past two years, but where the coal mining industry has been subsidised to the extent to which it has been, there is still a strong case for doing something for this deserving class. It is very difficult to suggest what should be done. I have myself, as representing two great herring fishery ports of Scotland—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot on a Supplementary Estimate make further suggestions which are for further Estimates.

Sir H. COWAN: I bow to your ruling, but I think I will have the sympathy of the Committee with me in endeavouring to take one of the rare opportunities which offer themselves of doing something for my constituents.

The CHAIRMAN: This is not the time for doing anything for one's constituents.

Sir H. COWAN: I am very glad you have given me the opportunity of saying so much.

Mr. STURROCK: I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. [Interruption.] I feel that the Scottish Members, who very seldom raise their voices in this House, have every title to speak upon a Vote of this kind, which affects such a very large class of Scotsmen. For myself, having studied this Vote, which is more than some of my hon. Friends have done, I only feel that not half enough has been done for the men on whose behalf the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Sir H. Cowan) has just spoken. We have had great difficulty in the East Coast of Scotland in satisfying these fishermen—who rendered splendid service during the War—as regards what the Government have been willing to do for them. Despite all that has been said with regard to economy, and economy is very desirable, the last class that should be dealt with in the niggardly spirit the Government has shown are the fishermen who did such splendid service during the War period. I hope, when it come to points like purchase in connection with the herring fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, or whoever is responsible, will look leniently upon those who are deeply affected by this matter and give them every consideration.

The CHAIRMAN: I must also recall the hon. Member to the Estimate which is before the Committee.

Mr. STURROCK: May I ask for a ruling as to what one really can talk about.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can talk about the scheme for the assistance of herring fishing, the purchase from curers of pickled herrings for resale, and the other matters with which the Estimate is concerned.

Mr. STURROCK: I feel personally that on these Votes which affect Scotland it is extremely difficult to talk about anything whatsoever. Here we are being asked to vote a large sum of money. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to what I have to say. Here is an item for repayment on Admiralty drifters. It refers to the remission of part of the purchase price allowed to ex-service fishermen who purchased surplus Admiralty drifters from the Fishery Board. I could dilate upon this topic
for many an hour, but I do not propose to do so. My only desire in rising was to put in a word on behalf of those who did good War work, and who as a whole are deserving of every sort of support. I make an earnest appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to do what he can. I know how hard it is in Scotland in any of these matters to make an impression upon the Government generally, because, feeling as strongly as I do on another matter altogther, not connected with fishery, I mean the question of the importation of Canadian cattle—

The CHAIRMAN: I can visualise the moment at which it may become my duty to request the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. STURROCK: If we cannot get satisfaction in this matter from the Government, I shall have the utmost possible pleasure in dividing the Committee against the Government.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: At the risk of attracting the anger of the Scottish Members towards me, Mr. Chairman, I should like to be allowed to say a word or two about the herring question, In the first place, I do not agree that the Scottish Members have any right to take the first place in any discussion on herrings, because we on the coast of Norfolk deal with more herrings than they over do. In reference to Item FF, it says there is to be paid £11,345 in respect of purchase from curers of pickled herrings for re-sale. I am at a loss to know why it is necessary to get that re-Vote into this Estimate. These pickled herrings are salted herrings. They are not consumed at all in this country, and I was under the impression that these pickled herrings were exported either to Russia or the North of Europe. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary undertook to allow the Export Credit scheme to deal with money required for the export of pickled herrings, and I should have thought this Vote unnecessary because the Export Credit scheme might have dealt with it. I am sure, however, there is a very good explanation for this Vote of £11,000. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) mentioned other markets, and there is one very big market which will come when we have made peace with Turkey. I would commend that to the attention of the Government.
As to Admiralty drifters, the Secretary for Scotland told us quite rightly that the herring fishery last year was a bad fishery. It was a bad fishery, and we never had a decent herring the whole year. I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland what he thinks was the cause of the failure of the herring fishery which necessitated him asking for this money back again on the drifter Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary for Scotland cannot be expected to answer questions on marine zoology.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As we have to vote £4,000 back, may I make a suggestion on that point, and that is that the Scottish Fishery Board should deal with this question and ascertain whether the reason for the failure of the fisheries last year was caused by the extreme heat altering the food of the fish? I support this Vote. It is a splendid thing to help to form the nursery of the Navy, and I think the Committee should allow this Vote to go through.

Captain W. BENN: I agree with everything my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has said about the rebate on the price of the drifters. I know cases of men who find it impossible to make a living owing to the very high price they paid at a time when tonnage was very dear. A question I wish to ask is this: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government is doing with the stocks of herring which they purchased? I have had questions put to me on this matter very often. It is quite obvious that the action of the Government affects the private traders materially in this matter, and it would help those who have put questions to me if it were known what the Government are doing with their stocks of herring.

Sir C. BARRIE: I wish to support what my hon. Friend said with regard to the reduction of price to the ex-service men. I am surprised the amount is so small. I could have hoped it would be very much larger. There is one point about which I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland. I understand that, in addition to the drifters which the Scottish Office sold to the fishermen, there were also drifters sold by the Admiralty to ex-service men. In that case I understand the Admiralty have refused to allow any rebate. I think it is very wrong that
in one case the Scottish Office should be able to grant fishermen 25 per cent, rebate, which is too small, and I think should be 50 per cent., whereas in the case of the Admiralty, although the vessels are the same, and have been bought for the same purpose, it has been refused. I think the Secretary for Scotland might take the matter up in the interest of Scottish fishermen, and I should like to ask him if he will do so, while considering at the same time the possibility of giving further reduction.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Vote is really a picture in miniature of the whole Government's foreign policy, and its effect on a great British industry, namely, deep-sea fishing. Take the items. First of all, there is the repayment of £4,000 for Admiralty drifters. One of the reasons that the price of drifters had fallen very much has been the throwing on to the market of many scores of fishing craft surrendered by Germany. That is why fishermen with craft on their hands, which are not worth in the market to-day what they paid for them, cannot get credit for them, or advances or mortgages, and they cannot keep up the payment.

Mr. STURROCK: May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member is in order?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is seeking to assign a cause whereby the Vote of £4,000 becomes necessary. So far he is not out of order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is throwing the thing out of gear—the whole shipping market and the fishing vessels. That is one of the reasons that we have to pay this £4,000. I should like to support the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Sir H. Cowan) in his inquiry as to what is happening to the scheme for giving these vessels to ex-service fishermen on part payment terms? Has that broken down? I can tell the Secretary for Scotland that a little further south the trawlers were handed to the—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now out of order.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the Secretary for Scotland is seeing that these Scottish fishermen to whom I have just referred,
these ex-service men, have been given fair play? I should like to know if we have to find this money to make good to these gallant fellows the stores they cannot get. Are they to have fair treatment? Has the Secretary for Scotland used his good offices to see that they get this fair treatment? Now in regard to the pickled herrings. [An HON. MEMBER: "Red herrings!"] No, I leave it to the Treasury Bench to deal with the red herrings. This is part of a large Vote. We subsidised the herring industry, and the reason we have to pay now, and why the men are suffering tremendous hardships, and why the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire spoke was—

Sir H. COWAN: Not to reply to you, at any rate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am in possession of the House for a few minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "A few minutes!"]—and with your permission, Mr. Hope, I intend to examine these Estimates. This Committee has not always done so, and the Government finds itself now in its present financial condition. The reason why these men are suffering such hardship is because of the general depression in the European market. It is not only the loss of money, but the deterioration of men in a valuable industry. I speak of the deep-sea fishermen. We are losing these men of talents, with their skill and hardiness; and they are the best support of our Navy. I hope I will be excused for a little heat in this matter, for this is one of the tragedies of the Government policy after the War. There are millions of people dying of starvation who could be kept alive by the herrings being sent out to them to Russia. The whole industry could revive, and instead of our voting these sums of money—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in dealing with that aspect of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the surplus stocks held by the Government could be got rid of the whole industry would revive. I would like to give the Committee an opportunity of expressing its sense of failure of the Government's policy. I cannot move a reduction because I should be depriving these fishermen of their money or the
herring fisheries of their subsidies, and so I am constrained to simply criticise and ask for further information. I think we should be given some further information with regard to the Admiralty drifters.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. and gallant Member has not addressed the Committee with his usual lucidity and relevance and I must decline to follow him in the somewhat irrelevant line he has adopted with regard to the policy of the Government in regard to fishing. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine asked whether the Government had explored the various channels by means of which these herrings could be disposed of, and I can assure him on that point. Through the good offices of the Overseas Trade Department the Government made the fullest investigation as to continental markets where these herrings could be disposed of, and so successful were they that I am able to say that all those herrings have been disposed of and shipped to various foreign ports. I am speaking about the Scottish industry and not those ports south of the Tweed.
With regard to the Admiralty drifters, I have been asked whether I could not secure a greater remission than 25 per cent. The Committee will recognise that this is rather a matter for the Treasury than for the Secretary of Scotland, and I can assure hon. Members that I shall convey their representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, I think the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir C. Barrie) has already seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the distinction alleged to have been drawn between the treatment of fishermen by the Admiralty and the Scottish Office, I am not fully informed. I am responsible for what is done in my Department, and although I have many troubles of my own, I do not answer for the Admiralty, and no doubt my hon. Friends will consult with the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me a question about ice and coal supplied to the fishermen. I have no information on that point, but I am not aware that there has been any boycotting or any difficulty placed in the way of those fishermen, whom we all recognise have played an exceedingly gallant part during the War, and in respect of that this Vote has become
necessary. Therefore, I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull has abstained from moving a reduction of this Vote.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course, of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries.

Sir G. COLLINS: I thought that some representative of the Government would have informed the Committee as to the £18,000 which we are asked to vote. The subject raised under this Vote arose in the House some years ago, and these heavy expenses are in addition to the large sums spent by the Air Ministry in the erection of an aerodrome in Renfrewshire. I have risen to invite the Government to give the Committee some information with regard to this Estimate.

Mr. YOUNG: This Supplementary Estimate is a very little one. The charge is £18,000 for additional expense of law agents acting on behalf of the Air Ministry in the Renfrew aerodrome case. These law charges are always most difficult to estimate with any accuracy, as I explained in the course of the previous Supplementary Estimate. This particular case was one in which there was a dispute as to two contracts, for an acceptance park and a repair depot at Renfrew. There was a dispute as to the manner in which the work was being conducted, and finally the contractor left the site, and an arrangement was made that the work should be measured with a view to payment being made for what it was worth. On the basis of that valuation it was considered by the Government that the contractors had been overpaid to the extent of some £50,000, and action was accordingly taken to recover that amount, or, alternatively, for damages for breach of contract. That was the point which had been reached when last year's Estimate was prepared. Un-
fortunately, our optimistic expectations as to the action were not fulfilled, and on the whole and on balance it went against the Government. On certain minor issues, as to the manner in which the work had been done, the Government succeeded, but on the major issues the Government failed, and the costs of the action were given against them and in favour of the defendant. That is really what has overtopped us and caused this Supplementary Estimate. It might be said, why has a single large charge resulted in a Supplementary Estimate? The answer is that we have spent up to the full on the original Estimate and consumed all other savings. We have established a new method of distributing the work amongst the law agents in Scotland, which results—and a very good result—in the accounts coming in more rapidly. There has been, therefore, a telescoping of charges into this year, an acceleration of payment, and that acceleration of payment has consumed the other savings and left us with the necessity of getting a Supplementary Estimate for the single large Vote.

Captain W. BENN: I am not surprised that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not rise to offer any explanation of a Vote which probably he would have desired to pass sub silentio. His plea that the Vote is only a little one may appear to be quite justified in view of the large expenditure of the Government in all directions, but the principle appears to be an amazing one. First of all, we learn that all law expenses which, of course, provided a margin for contingencies, have been exhausted. That is explained as being due to some new arrangement. The sooner the old arrangements, which provided for certain saving, is restored, the better it will be for the taxpayer of the country. Secondly, the Financial Secretary says that the Renfrewshire aerodrome trouble arose because there was some dispute with the contractor, and that the amount in dispute was £50,000. Is the £18,000 exclusively for the Renfrewshire aerodrome, or is the total £28,000?

Mr. YOUNG: The £18,000 is for the Renfrewshire case.

Captain BENN: We have heard that £18,000 is the total bill. That is the money we spent in the hope of recovering
£50,000. Here is a law case in which the Government management was so bad that they were in the wrong; their judgment was so wrong that they pursued it, and they spent £18,000 in the false hope of recovering £50,000. I do not think it is possible to criticise them more severely than by a mere statement of the facts.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I do not know of any more blundering condition of affairs than the action of the Government in this matter. First of all, they arrested the contractor and put him in gaol with his managers. That policy was abandoned and the man was released. Then action was taken against him on the ground that he was over-paid. Charges were made against the contractor, but in the long inquiries held into the allegations the Government failed absolutely. I have no interest in the contractor and do not know him, but as the aerodrome is in my constituency I followed the case with the greatest attention. If the Government and their Law Officers had used ordinary precautions they would never have incurred this expenditure. Here we are saddled with this bill for legal charges—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council, bearing date the 31st day of January, 1922, and cited as the Government of Ireland (Adaptation of Health Insurance Acts) Order, 1922, be annulled.
I am somewhat surprised at the action of the Government in placing on the Table of this House an Order in Council of the character which we are called upon to discuss to-night, because it will be only fair to all the interests involved that a matter of this sort should, as it could be very well, be left over until we see whether the Irish question is or is not going to be definitely settled. This Order in Council,
if it passes without any opposition, proposes to divide the National Health Service into two separate and distinct sections in Ireland. Whatever arguments may be put forward in favour of the division of other Government services in that country, we have a very legitimate and irresistible case against the division of this service of National Health. In my judgment the Government are endeavouring by a Party trick to do that which they are not entitled to do by the Act of Parliament itself. According to the Act of Parliament these services are to be handed over to the Northern and Southern Governments when those Governments commence to function. The Southern Government has not commenced to function yet, and I contend it is absolutely illegal to hand over the National Health Service in North-East Ulster to the Northern Government until such time as the Free State Government materialises. It was laid down by the Act of 1920—that ill-conceived and universally objectionable Measure—that there were certain services which might very well be brought into operation through the Council of Ireland. Railways and National Health Insurance are two of those services. The Council of Ireland has not come into existence at all, and, on the question of the railways, the Minister of Labour in the Northern Parliament and the Minister of Labour in the South have met and have adjusted between themselves all the questions that affect the conditions of the workers and the general administration of railways in Ireland. I fail to conceive why a similar attitude was not adopted in regard to this National Health Service. Practically speaking it is not a Government service at all. This is not simply a question of transferring a Government service, but a question that affects a vast machinery of voluntary organisations that are carrying on the administration of the Act, and what it is proposed now to do is to divide that which has been a most efficient Department, conducted to a large extent voluntarily in Ireland, and which has drawn within it men of differing religion and various shades of political opinion, who have co-operated and worked together to make the Act a success. The objection to this course, the House will be surprised to know, is taken from every creed and shade of politics in Ireland. It is taken from every organisation that is administering
the Insurance Act. When it was proposed to divide National Health Insurance and to set up a section in the North and a section in the South, the different societies met together and, with a unanimity so unparalleled and exceptional that I do not think it is possible to get it on any other question in Ireland, protested against the division of this service. There were the Orange Protestant Association, the Presbyterian Association, the Rechabite Association, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and the National Foresters—all the great organisations that have so efficiently and successfully administered the Act in Ireland; and every one of them, irrespectively of creed, protested against the division. Then the Government come forward and try, by this method of an Order in Council, to do a thing which is hostile to the united opinion of those who are administering the Act. All these men who have conducted so splendidly and successfully the administration of the Act which the Prime Minister carried against the great bulk of his supporters in this House, who are now keeping him in power—all these organisations working together are now united against that which this Order in Council proposes to do.
In the second place, let me say—and I would ask the House to consider this—that, in addition to the various organisations to which I have referred, there is bitter hostility to the division of this National Health service into two branches, from the Government's own officials in Ireland, and I think I am entitled, although I may make some draft on the patience of the House, to read to the House a declaration made the other day by the National Health Commissioners. All of these organisations to which I have already referred waited upon the National Health Commissioners, and put their views before this body, which is the representative of the Government in Ireland, and which controls this service. Here is the view that the Commissioners expressed:
The position in reference to the question of National Health Insurance may be divided into two parts—pre-Treaty and post-Treaty. On the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, we raised the point that the existing insurance service was an excluded service, and asked for a decision on the point by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I would just like to make this observation in connection with that statement. The
society have pleaded to have this question of the legality of this division tried—and they are entitled to do it under the Act—before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the Government refused to do it because they knew the Judicial Committee would give a hostile decision to them.

Mr. STURROCK: Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that the Judicial Committee would give a hostile decision in any case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is entitled to give his view of what he anticipates would be the decision.

Mr. DEVLIN: The difference between myself and the hon. Member is that he does not understand how high is the intelligence of a great judicial body and I do, even though it is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Commissioners go on to say:
We were informed that the Irish Government was advised that the service is a transferred service, and that it was not considered necessary to refer the question to the Privy Council. We then urged that the appointed day be postponed until either there was a Southern Parliament in operation or its alternative under Section 72.
According to the Article by which they seek this power, in laying this Order in Council on the Table, services of this character were not to be taken over until either the Southern Parliament functioned or until there would be a substitute for it. The Southern Parliament has not functioned, and there is no substitute for it, and therefore I agree with the Commissioners that the action of the Government in this matter is ultra vires.
In the meantime the Minister of Health, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, set up a Departmental Committee, whose Report is before you, for the purpose of advising what steps were to be taken to carry out the revision of the service on 1st January, 1922, the then appointed day. It is within your recollection that all the Irish societies protested that they could not be ready by 1st January, and asked for a further postponement, first to the last available date, and then, by agreement, to such later date as the two Governments may agree to, the societies at the same time protesting against any division of the Health Insurance on legal and administrative grounds. The postponement to 1st March was agreed to by the Northern Government, and the Order in Council was altered accordingly. In the meantime the Treaty was signed, and the position was fundamentally altered. The Committee's Report was ready when the
Treaty was signed, but nothing could be done by the 'Commission until the Treaty was ratified and the Provisional Government set up. When this was done I, on behalf of the Commission, and as the Irish representative oh the Joint Committee, put the whole matter very fully before the Provisional Government. Our view then was that the Treaty so fundamentally altered the position that the consent of the Provisional Government was essential to the division of the service and to all steps which might be necessary to carry out that division. In order that the Provisional Government should have time to consider the matter we suggested to them a further postponement.

Mr. STURROCK: Circulate it.

Mr. DEVLIN: It was circulated. English Members of Parliament have such a contempt for their own Government official communications they never read them. The hon. Member got it last Monday morning at 8 o'clock, and asks me now, at 11.15, was it circulated.

Mr. STURROCK: I am not an Englishman.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, under the Statute, is entitled to make this Motion.

Mr. DEVLIN: Mr. Speaker, give him a chance. This is the last he will get. He will be beaten by about 10,000 majority.
The present appointed day—
namely, 1st March, to-morrow. Without the societies getting any notice their whole machinery is to be dislocated, their whole organisation broken up, their insured members left in an almost impossible position. This Order in Council is to operate to-morrow:
The present appointed day is purely artificial, as it is in the middle of a week, and practically in the middle of a half year, and means the apportionment of every week's sickness benefit paid in the week in which 1st March falls, between the Northern Government and the Irish Free State.
If we were originally right in putting forward the view that the Insurance Service was "excluded," then it is clearly covered by the Treaty, and was transferred to the Irish Free State. Such services were to be under the control of the Irish Free State until the Northern Parliament decides whether it will come in or not, and such decision cannot be come to until the Free State Parliament is actually elected and sitting. It may be that the Provisional Government will not accept the view taken by the late Irish Government that National Health Insurance was a transferred service. The Provisional Government, as everyone
knows, has very little time to deal with such matters, and is engaged upon more urgent problems. All the facts are before the Minister of Finance, and until his decision roaches us we cannot do anything further in the matter.
Under the Treaty it is open to Ulster to come into the Free State or remain out of it. My own view is that Ulster will come in. [Laughter.] Yes. I am an Ulster man myself. We are a very shrewd race, and considering how shrewd we are the possibilities are that, notwithstanding the heroics of my hon. Friends opposite, they will come in and enjoy triumphantly the benefits, just as they have enjoyed the Land Acts, the Labour Acts and the Housing Acts. No class of the community has ever plucked so many flowers of national triumph as they have done from the tree of Irish agitation. Sometimes the flowers and sometimes the plums, but always something. Belfast people are always sure to get hold of something material and useful. Therefore, seeing that, according to the Prime Minister and the other great Statesmen who guide the destinies of this nation, the Treaty was to be of such inestimable value to all the interests concerned, I think Ulster will come into the Free State. But it may be that Ulster will not come into the Free State. They might do a better thing still; they might join with me—

Mr. STURROCK: Hear, hear!

Mr. DEVLIN: You are at it again. Go back to Montrose. Go and try to make a speech there. Do not take too much advantage of the right of free speech in this House. If Ulster come into the Free State, they will enjoy all the privileges and advantages of the Free State, and still reserve to themselves all the powers they enjoy now in the Northern Parliament; that priceless asset. I am a Member of that Parliament, and so are my hon. Friends opposite, and they know that it is a very valueless institution from any point of view. What I would like them to do, is not to come into the Free State, but to join me in demanding one Parliament for the whole country, and instead of having a country divided, a small island like Ireland, cast in the seas—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is being tempted into a wide sea. He had better come closer to the subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: I never knew anyone who could so happily express a situation as you can, Mr. Speaker; I am addressing the Ulster Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is just the mistake which the hon. Member is making. He is addressing me.

Mr. DEVLIN: Once again, Sir, you are right, as usual. I am not addressing the Ulster Parliament, but the Members of the Ulster Parliament. But possibly we shall draw nearer, and have in Ireland one parliament for the whole country. The country is not large enough for two Parliaments. One Parliament is enough for this country—and what a hand it has made of it! If one parliament is enough for a large country with a population of forty-five millions, one Parliament should be enough for a country with a population of four and a half millions. We should all join together.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: You will soon be a Unionist.

Mr. DEVLIN: Certainly, I am, and the Separatists are there. My hon. Friend and I should change places. He stands for separation in Ireland and I stand for Irish union, the union of our country in a common governmental institution with a common administrative machinery, which gives the greatest security for the efficiency and prosperity of the nation. Therefore, the real solution of this problem is not for hon. Gentlemen opposite to come into this Free State, but to come into Ireland, for Ireland is their country as well as mine. What is the reason for irritating public opinion, dislocating the machinery of a great public service, creating the irritation consequent upon the division of the North and the South on a matter on which you ought not to divide, and disturbing the societies and general organisation that have so splendidly administered this Act far better than it was ever administered in this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman differ from that?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am listening.

Mr. DEVLIN: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to me carefully during the last three years as he does now, he would not have made so many blunders. I hope he is not going to commit the final
blunder of differing from me to-night. What does he propose to do? Take the Orange and Protestant Association. The central administration is in Belfast. They have 30,000 members in Southern Ireland. The central administration is in Belfast. They will have to establish offices, erect buildings, and create machinery in Southern Ireland, so far south as Donegal. In order to show the fantastic paradoxes of the situation in Ireland, may I say that Donegal is in Southern Ireland, and Donegal is a hundred miles north of Belfast? If Donegal is not sufficiently attractive they can start their organisation in Cork, Kerry or Tipperary. On the other hand, take organisations like the Foresters and Ancient Order of Hibernians. Their central offices and administrative machinery are in Dublin, but a very large proportion of their members are in the North of Ireland. They will have to start offices in Belfast or Derry.
When the Insurance Act was first brought into operation—I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here—although it was unpopular at the time and most unpopular in Ireland, and although it brought much opprobrium on public men both in this country and in Ireland, I supported it loyally. I believed it was a good thing, and I believe so still. The various organisations in Ireland proceeded, not, mark you, under the Health funds, but out of their private resources, to build up premises and to engage staffs. These premises have been used effectively, and these staffs have worked magnificently, and now, having done all that out of their private resources, the whole machinery is, without a farthing of compensation, to be rendered nugatory, and many of the staffs will be dismissed, also without any compensation. I hope the Government will not insist on pressing for the carrying out of this Order. It is time enough to consider the division of these services. Let the whole question be settled one way or another first. If the Northern Government come into the Free State, then National Health Insurance will be under the Free State. If they stay out, then it will be time enough to consider the matter. My ambition, in which I stand away from the general body of conflicting politicians who constitute the main factor in the hostilities carried on in Ireland, is
that they should come into a common Parliament for all Ireland which would be the ideal of all good men. It will yet be found that that is the only final solution of the question, and men in Ireland are coming to see it, day by day and hour by hour. If they come into such a Parliament, then by this Order another mistake will have been made, a blunder will have been committed, and the whole machinery of these societies will be dislocated. I ask the Government to consent to my Motion and to nullify this Order in Council, and not to endeavour to do an illegal act by political and Parliamentary camouflage and by a trick. Universal public opinion is in favour of my contention that there is no course for the Government to adopt but to accept my Motion. No doubt I shall be opposed by hon. Members opposite who, for reasons of their own, desire to get these services under the Northern Government. Will they contradict my statement that the Orange and Protestant Society is against the breaking up of these services, that the Presbyterian national health insurance organisation is against it and that all classes and sections in Ireland which are vitally concerned in the administration of the service are against it? Why then should it not be left as it is, until later on these organisations will have a better opportunity of considering their future and fashioning their machinery accordingly?

Mr. RHYS J. DAVIES: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), and I regret that he should refer to an Order in Council, properly laid upon the Table of this House, as a "Parliamentary trick." This Order, transferring Health Insurance from the Votes of this House and from the administration of the British Government to the Northern Parliament, is not a Parliamentary trick or political camouflage. It is done according to law, laid down in the Act of 1920 and by Orders in Council, when the Irish Free State Agreement Bill is passed, powers—and in many respects identical powers, including health insurance—will also be transferred to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland. It is not a trick. It is a method accepted by the House, and it proves most effective in practice. More
than that, this is the last of over 30 Orders that have been issued by the Privy Council to transfer powers under the 1920 Act to the Northern Government. This is the first of the Orders to be challenged; this is the last of the Orders to be made. This Order was laid on the Table of the House at the earliest possible date after its passing by the Privy Council, namely, on 7th February, and it has been on the Table ever since. A Motion for its annulment appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, but the Order becomes operative on the 1st March, the day after to-morrow. If the House annulled this Order it would defeat one of the objects of the Act of 1920, and we must remember that that is an Act of Parliament.

Mr. DEVLIN: You can break it as you broke the other two.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: You would throw into chaos the whole system of Health Insurance in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to hold up this Order in Council. The Government is powerless in the matter. We cannot postpone the day, 1st March, except by legislation—or, rather, further than 2nd March, for 2nd March under the 1920 Act is the last possible day for any Orders in Council transferring powers to the Northern Parliament, so that it is only by legislation between now and to-morrow that we could possibly alter this Order in Council. To ask the House to annul this Order is to ask them to do an impossibility. The hon. Member for the Falls Division complained that this Order in Council has not been tested by the courts of law. It was tested in the Court of the Master of the Rolls in Dublin.

Mr. DEVLIN: What did he say?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: He said the Act was not ultra vires, as suggested by the hon. Member for the Falls Division.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did not the Master of the Rolls say that the reason he could not give a decision was that the Attorney-General for Ireland did not appear, and he was so disgusted at the conduct of the case by the Government that, although he gave a decision, not of a very definite character, he refused to give costs to the Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The learned judge did complain of the absence of the Attorney-General for Ireland, but there is no Attorney-General for Ireland. In order to save money, I did not appoint another Attorney-General.

Mr. DEVLIN: This, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, is a question which might legitimately be tried before a court of law, since he refused to have the question submitted to the Privy Council, when the societies were put to the cost of having this matter determined by the Master of the Rolls, and the Government never sent a lawyer there to represent them. The Master of the Rolls commented on it, and he said the reason why he would not give an injunction was because the Attorney-General was not there.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The learned judge did say he was sorry there was not an Attorney-General there—and I have given the reason—but the learned judge also said the Order in Council was intra vires. There is no question about that. Health Insurance is not a reserved service, and when the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Provisional Government complains, I may say that it has never been brought to my notice that they complain. This Order in Council is based on a report drawn up by a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alfred Watson, the Government Actuary. On the committee were also the Chairman of the Insurance Commissioners of Ireland and other distinguished gentlemen, experts in health insurance. As a result of this committee's report, this Order in Council was drawn up, passed by the, Privy Council, and is now on the Table of the House. I said a moment ago that National Insurance is the last of all the powers to be transferred to the Northern Parliament, but from the day of the setting up of the Northern Parliament all interested parties knew that this service, like all other services, would in due course be transferred by Order in Council, so that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that no notice was given. Notice has been given since June of last year.

Mr. DEVLIN: Postponed from time to time.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Postponed from time to time to meet the con-
venience of interested parties, but the very fact that it was postponed to meet their convenience shows they had notice of it. We cannot postpone it now, without legislation, beyond tomorrow, on which day the Act becomes operative. More than that, the staff is complete in Northern Ireland, ready to take over on the 1st March, so that there will be no serious break in the administration of health insurance in Northern Ireland. Everything is ready for the commencement of business on the 1st March, and the necessary circulars have already been sent out before the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was placed on the Paper. Circulars have been sent to the societies interested in Northern Ireland. All the important ones are supporting this Order in Council and promising loyal support to the Ministry there. It will cause no more inconvenience to administer the Health Insurance Act through the machinery of the Northern Parliament on the one side and the Southern Parliament on the other, from an administrative point of view, than it does to administer the Act separately in Wales on the one side and in England on the other. A very important fact is that all the powers we have issued under Orders in Council to the Northern Parliament have the acquiescence of the signatories to the Treaty. To vote for this Motion is to vote against the Treaty. This is one of the powers transferred under the Act of 1920, and therefore one of the powers guaranteed by this Government.

Mr. DEVLIN: What will happen if the boundaries be changed? What will the right hon. Gentleman do then?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: To vote for this Motion is to vote against the Act of 1920, and to vote against the Treaty of Peace.

Mr. DEVLIN: Nonsense!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: To vote for this Motion is to vote for the continuance of the burden of health insurance on the Votes of this House and to refuse to transfer it to the Northern Parliament. To vote for this Motion is to vote for further intervention in the administration of Irish local affairs. To attempt
to interfere with this Order in Council transferring these necessary powers is to interfere for the first time since the Treaty was passed in the local administration of Ireland. It would be a fatal blunder to do so. The House has not, I think, the right to interfere in a matter that by law has been transferred to the Northern Parliament and will soon be transferred, when the Free State Bill becomes law, to the Southern Parliament, namely Health Insurance. Any future course taken in respect to the Health Insurance in Ireland must be a matter of negotiation and settlement between the Northern and Southern Governments. It is no longer in my opinion—and I say it with all respect—a question for this House further to interfere in the local affairs of Ireland.

Mr. HAYDAY: Does this Order in any way affect the status of societies in England whose members are in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, in my opinion it would not.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was hoping that my hon. Friends opposite who represent the Northern Parliament would have risen to take part in this Debate, for I was waiting, in quite a friendly way, for answers to some of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I do not want to over emphasise it, but their silence to me signifies much. One must conclude that they are going against the wishes of their friends who belong to these insurance and collective societies—

Mr. O'NEILL: No!

Mr. O'CONNOR: Very well, my hon. Friend the Speaker of the Northern Parliament says "No." I would like to ask him a few questions on that point. Is it or is it not the fact that all these insurance bodies, Orange, Presbyterian, and Catholic, have, with great vehemence, protested? I trust no political heat will be imported into this matter, but that the House will give its verdict on plain business grounds. The Chief Secretary has learnt a great deal in his time, but perhaps there is one thing the right hon. Gentleman has never learnt, and that is about insurance—except, of course, the matter of his own personal insurance.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, alert and quick as is his mind, he will find this one of the most difficult of all problems of learned society. I was speaking to a big insurance man the other day, who had been 40 years in the business, and he said that even now he was learning something more every day. When you break up a large complicated machine like that of insurance, you are dealing with something much more difficult than you anticipate at the start. Insurance is one of the most delicate machines in the world conducted by men of very great skill, regulated on the narrow and difficult margin of averages, and, therefore, a machine which, above all others, being so delicate, ought to be left untouched by the Government. These men belong to Orange Societies, Presbyterians and Catholics, and they know this business, and with one common assent, forgetting all their differences, political and religious, all these heads of insurance companies in Ireland protest against this provision. All the insurance experts of England also protest against this breaking up of Irish insurance as being very dangerous, not only in Ireland but also to those associated with Irish insurance in England. That is my main objection.
The Chief Secretary always does drag a political argument into a business proposition. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty with the rival Governments in Ireland, and if he gives something with one hand he naturally feels called upon to give something with the other hand to the opposite side. But could he not wait? There are certain common things in Ireland that every man must agree must be the common work of some common body which has authority to act for all parts of Ireland. Take the case of the railway workers' dispute. Recently the Minister of Labour in the Northern Parliament met the Minister of Labour in the Provisional Government, and the result was that between them they were able to fashion out an agreement which restored peace to Ireland and brought the railwaymen back to their work and thus saved Ireland from a great disaster. Why are the insurance men of the six northern counties and those representing the rest of Ireland not allowed to meet together and arrange a common system which would not break up the machinery? We
all know that there is no kind of accountancy more difficult than that which deals with great sums of money which is derived from small subscriptions, and very often in such cases when the capital involved is over a million, even experts feel bound to leave the accountancy to the Bank of England which has had experience in these matters. Anyone who has been connected with industrial insurance knows that when the amount is gigantic the work of accountancy is extremely difficult.
Apply that principle to health insurance. How are these men in their offices in Dublin to reach their various clients in Belfast and the other towns of Ulster? How are they to reshape all their accounts? There are towns in Ireland which are in two counties. My own native town is in the county of Roscommon in the province of Connaught, and the other part of the town, separated only by a bridge, is in the province of Leinster; and you find the same problems of geography all over Ireland. An insurance company may not know whether a man lives in the centre of Strabane and in one county, or just a few yards away and in another county. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary says that by the Act this division could not take place until the Parliament of Southern Ireland was functioning. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman wait? Supposing the Boundary Commission makes considerable changes in the present boundaries—or some changes? Supposing a portion of Tyrone is taken away, or a portion of Fermanagh? You will have to reconsider the whole question.
There are two ways of approaching this unhappy division between Ulster and the rest of Ireland. One of the ways, the way which I most favour, is by the two Governments finding as much ground for common action as possible; and every man hopes, and most men foresee, that when passions are dying down—the horrible passions of to-day—there will be more and more inclination on the part of the shrewd business men of Belfast and the rest of that portion of Ireland, to find as much common ground as possible between the two Parliaments. In the face of that prospect the right hon. Gentleman throws into chaos the whole national health insurance business in Ireland, and puts an additional obstacle
in the way, instead of smoothing the path for that unification of the general powers of Ireland which every patriotic Irishman desires.

Mr. J. JONES: I am not going to enter into the Nationalist or anti-Nationalist point of view in this matter. I belong to an English trade union, which happens to have among its membership a large number of men in both parts of Ireland—North and South. Those men are registered in our approved society. We had an approved society under the National Health Insurance Act, and we have some thousands of men in Ireland. Are we to understand—I only ask the question—that in one part of Ireland our members are entitled to receive full benefit and all the advantages of the National Health Insurance Act, while in another part they are to be denied that opportunity? Under the new dispensation, under the Act of 1920, these men automatically become citizens of a new State, and all the responsibilities of the Government of the country become the responsibilities of the new State. Are we going to have a guarantee that all our members who have been connected with the National Health Insurance, Part I and Part II, are going to have the advantages of their subscriptions which they have been paying since the Act came into operation? That is all I want to know. Up to the present we have had no such guarantee. In the North of Ireland the Northern Parliament are guaranteed, but, pending a settlement of the Irish problem between the two Governments, North and South, there is no guarantee for the people in the South that they are going to receive the benefits for which they have been subscribing. I would like to have from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Greenwood) an understanding that they are going to receive the advantages to which they are entitled.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am glad this question has come before the House, because those of us who are interested in State insurance and English societies having Irish members were astonished by the circular which has been issued to those societies. I desire to ask two questions. Firstly, in that circular, approved societies with head offices in England and membership in Ireland have been asked to relinquish the approval in Ireland, and
presumably not to recruit any more new members in North or South. I wish to ask whether in relinquishing approval a society in that case would be able to compel Irish members to find membership in Irish societies. The other point is that these Irish members in these English societies at the moment created values by their contributions, and have been entitled up to the moment to additional benefits from the funds of the so-called international societies. In the event of these members in Ireland being compelled to leave the English societies, would they carry with them the additional benefits they now draw from the society which is now internationally carried on. I do think these circulars ought to have been issued long ago. They have placed the approved societies with head offices in England, at any rate, at great disadvantage in carrying out the administrative propositions in the circulars. The trade union approved societies in particular, and the friendly societies who have Irish members and head offices in England, will find that they will pay one benefit from the trade union funds, and apparently the Northern Parliament will see to the State insurance benefit of the individual. Now both benefits are paid to one individual by the same process. These are some of the points about which I desire information from the Chief Secretary.

12 M.

Captain REDMOND: I was rather surprised to hear the representative of the Government at this stage of the Irish negotiations making a statement such as we have just heard from the Chief Secretary. He has gone out of his way by insisting on this Order in Council to flout the decision of those in Ireland who are most concerned with the working of this Act—men drawn from every part of the country. The Chief Secretary stated that this was not a trick, but that it was done under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. He did not, however, explain under what Clause of the Act he was proceeding. As far as I know—and I do not think that anyone acquainted with the Act will contradict me—the Insurance Act was recognised under the Government of Ireland Act as one of the excluded services—as a service which should not be handed over either to the Northern or to the Southern Parlia-
ment whenever they came into existence, but a service which the Government hoped might ultimately be handed over to the Council of Ireland. Anyone acquainted with the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, knows that it was excluded from the services within that Act, and to my knowledge the societies concerned—both Orange and Catholic—have consulted many eminent legal authorities in Ireland and had secured their considered opinion that the action of the Government in this respect has been illegal. The representatives of the societies waited upon the Minister of Health and put forward a united demand which was very reasonable. It may be asked what was the alternative to bringing forward this Order in Council. It was the simple and rational one to postpone the Order in Council until the next valuation which takes place in December, 1923. A further alternative was to get both the Northern Government and the Provisional Government to meet and agree to the postponement of the Order in Council until the vexatious boundary question has been decided. After all, as we have already heard, the same manner of dealing has been followed in regard to the Irish railways, and this is a case in which there are even stronger reasons and more wonderful unanimity between the North and the South. I say, further, that the alternatives proposed by this united deputation are both rational and deserving of better consideration than they have received from a Government which professes to desire the unity of Ireland. In the first place this deputation, representing all the insurance societies in Ireland, oppose this Order in Council because they say that it will be both troublesome and expensive, and, indeed, futile; for what point is there in breaking up societies which have their branches all over the country, and determining that one section shall belong to one part of the country and another section to another, until you know where the boundary line is going to be between one part of the country and the other.
The second and, to my mind, the most favourable argument, was that of illegality, and I think the Chief Secretary has dealt with that in a very light-hearted manner. After all, he said, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland has decided that this was not ultra vires, and
that it was not illegal; but is the right hon. Gentleman sure of his facts? Is it not the fact that the case is still pending, and that there has been no decision in the matter whatever? An interlocutory injunction was applied for—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows a little about what that is—against the Insurance Commissioners and the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Master of the Rolls dismissed the case against the Attorney-General for Ireland, because no such supreme being now exists. He came then to the case against the Insurance Commissioners, and, to my knowledge, he gave his judgment on these grounds. He said that he could not grant this interlocutory injunction against the Insurance Commissioners because they were a Government Department, and that he, as His Majesty's Judge, was not going to give a decision against a Government Department. He further said that, if the Insurance Commissioners transferred the money to the Northern Parliament Commission, then, that being a Government Department, the Government was liable, and he did not desire to give this interlocutory injunction against them. The one important point, however, that the Chief Secretary left out was that no costs were given in the action against the approved societies, and surely the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that, if the Master of the Rolls had come to a final decision—which I still submit he has not—and if he thought that this was a strictly legal and proper course for the Government to take, and in no way ultra vires, as I suggest it is, he must have given costs against those who brought this action. Furthermore, he went on to state this—and it is only right that the House should be acquainted with these facts, because they are facts—that the matter of costs should be decided in the final action, and that does away with the suggestion that the matter has been decided already, and that the Master of the Rolls has decided that the Government, in taking this course, were acting intra and not ultra vires, as we suggest they were. After all, I imagine that the Government will say: "We are producing this Order in Council under Section 69 of the Act of 1920." That Clause provided that the Northern Parliament would have a representative on the Joint Committee
who were in this country responsible to this Parliament, that the Southern Parliament should have the same and it would be a Joint Committee responsible to this Parliament. But where is your Joint Committee here now? Where has it gone to? How can the Insurance Act both be transferred to the Northern Parliament, on which they can pass whatever legislation they please in the future, and at the same time how can they have a representative here on the Joint Committee responsible to this Parliament, as was originally suggested? My contention is that the Insurance Act should be administered now until affairs have been satisfactorily settled in Ireland as it was originally intended that it should be administered by the promoters of the Act of 1920. You are proposing to divide an Act which is based upon area administration before the area itself has been properly devised. Hon. Members from the North of Ireland have kept silence. I imagine that if there is a Division they will be found voting in favour of this Order and against the Motion. That is a pretty comment upon the statement of the Chief Secretary that a vote in favour of this Motion and against this Order is a vote against the Irish Treaty. But why will those hon. Members be in that Lobby? The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that they will be there in spite of their silence to-night, because they want to bind as much as they can, and entrench themselves as much as they can, behind the already existing boundary of the six counties. They want to be able to make it more difficult in the future, to place more obstacles in the
way of coming to a satisfactory settlement of the boundary question than ever exist to-day.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present—

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. This is a deliberate attempt organised by Sir George Younger to prevent the Minister of Health being heard on this question. It is part of the war being waged by one section of the Coalition against the other.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. Attention has been called to the fact that there are not 40 Members present. Strangers will withdraw.

Mr. KILEY: A large number of hon. Members are standing outside the door, Could not they be invited to come in?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will count them, if I see them.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it in order for Members of this House to come in, and invite others to walk out?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have seen it done before.

Mr. DEVLIN: It is the only intelligent thing those men have done since they came to Parliament.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: If you will put your head round the corner, Mr. Speaker, yon will see a large number of hon. Members.

House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes after Twelve of the Clock till To-morrow (Tuesday).